ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2024
- Sex, gender, and the debate over identity explained by Berkeley professor Judith Butler.
Subscribe to Big Think on TH-cam ► / @bigthink
Up next, Judith Butler: Your behavior creates your Gender ► • Judith Butler: Your Be...
What if gender wasn't a predetermined reality, but a fluid construct formed by culture, history, and individual identity? This is a question that drives the work of Judith Butler, a gender theorist and distinguished professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
While acknowledging the biological realities of sex, Butler promotes the concept of gender as performative - something that is enacted and shaped through our actions and interactions. This view, although challenging to traditional perspectives, is instrumental in the discourse on queer, trans, and women's rights. Butler encourages a shift in societal conversation to include diverse gender identities.
This transformation, they believe, allows us to work toward a society where equality, freedom, and justice are at the forefront, reinforcing the foundations of our democratic society.
0:00 What is gender theory?
1:34 Sex and gender: What’s the difference?
2:29 Learning from genocide
3:34 Queer theory in the 1970s & ’80s
4:56 Big ideas in gender theory’s evolution
7:06 Gender is “performative”: What that means
9:04 The resistance to trans rights
10:37 Countering the attack on gender
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/series/legends/g...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Judith Butler:
Judith Butler is a post-structuralist philosopher and queer theorist. They are most famous for the notion of gender performativity, but their work ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, mourning and war.
They have received countless awards for their teaching and scholarship, including a Guggenheim fellowship, a Rockefeller fellowship, Yale's Brudner Prize, and an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Distinguished Achievement Award.
Their books include "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity," "Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex," "Undoing Gender," and "Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
Our mission is to make you smarter, faster. Watch interviews with the world’s biggest thinkers on science, philosophy, business, and more.
► Big Think+
Looking to ignite a learning culture at your company? Prepare your workforce for the future with educational courses from the world’s biggest thinkers. Trusted by Ford, Marriot, Bank of America, and many more. Learn how Big Think+ can empower your people today: bigthink.com/plus/?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: bigthink.com/?...
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: bigthink.com/subscribe/?...
► Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook/
► Instagram: bigth.ink/Instagram/
► Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter/
Answers to frequently asked questions in the comments:
(Note: As Butler says, there are many perspectives on gender. This is not intended to be an authoritative answer. There is room to argue, to learn, to disagree. Hopefully this answers some general questions we often see in the comments and helps the conversation move forward.)
Aren't men and women physically different? What's the difference between biological sex and gender? What does 'assigned at birth' mean?
As Butler acknowledges at 1:41, there are biological differences in sex.
To clarify: Most people are born with the sex of either male (with XY chromosomes and male anatomy) or female (with XX chromosome and female anatomy). A small proportion of people are born with different chromosomal or anatomical makeups (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome).
Gender is the role people of a specific sex play in different cultures. For example: In 15th century Italy, men wore tights and skirts, while in 21st century America that would be considered feminine. In 1950s America, most women would not have careers, while in 2023 Haredi culture, most men do not work and most women do. All of these people have similar biology, but the norms around how they live: their dress, their occupation, their manners and customs, etc. can be very different based on their sex and the society.
The phrase 'assigned at birth' refers to how most of us are raised from birth with the gender role most typical of the sex you are born. (This is often true even of people who are neither biologically male or female).
Transgender people are those who intuitively identify with a different gender from their sex or assigned gender, and decide to live as it. Nonbinary people are those who identify with neither gender, and decide to stop publicly identifying with them.
Why don't we just expand the definitions of gender to include more behaviors, rather than people having to switch genders?
It's possible to do both. People frequently identify as their assigned gender despite having some unconventional behaviors for it. Others simply feel a deeper connection to the gender they weren't raised as, and feel happier living as it. Butler argues that we should simply allow people to define themselves how they like and respect that choice.
Why wasn't anyone doing this until recently?
There are well-documented examples of transgender and non-binary people for hundreds, if not thousands of years: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
There are also many examples of people redefining gender over the course of history; indeed, that may be how we got from 15th century gender roles to today's. In recent memory, artists like David Bowie, Prince, Eddie Izzard--as well as movies like Boys Don't Cry, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and Tootsie--are all famous examples of exploring different gender identities.
It seems reasonable to acknowledge humans have had a wide variety of feelings and behavior around gender. It's also worth noting that in many societies defying gender roles could--and can--come with severe social or even criminal consequences, and that likely reduced the amount of behaviors people expressed. As greater knowledge and acceptance of nonconventional identities emerges, it's possible that more people simply feel comfortable identifying and expressing feelings that might have been repressed in the past.
For a deeper dive into the scientific research around transgender issues, check out our columnist Ethan Seigel's recent article on it: bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-is-a-woman/
When my Brother at 11 years of age was lured by a pack of pedophiles .Ultimately groomed, used ,then basically slaughtered ! Also tried to explain gender abnormalities ! Why they are being shoved down our throats is to keep on destroying the normal balanced Families Which develop healthy communities and Culture . Divide and conquer . So the psychopath Elite can ?
I respect personality and individual identity. What I have a problem with is the gender theorist claim that a great many behaviours are incompatible with a biological sex (of which there are only two. There is no third mechanism by which reproduction may occur in humans, nor can humans switch between the two).
What the majority of people think about typical behaviours associated with certain sexes is irrelevant and it is the height of narcissism to define your personal identity around what other people think - so far as to claim, you may have been born into the wrong body because of what other people think of your body.
Of course people have always behaved differently. But it is an entirely new phenomenon for activists to claim that mere behaviour has changed their physiology, entitling them to access to the protected spaces of the opposite sex.
Don’t worry Americans, Texas will save us! Texas will show us the way forward. Texas!!!!
"As Butler says, there are many perspectives on gender."
And all of those stemming from modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) are incoherent.
"As Butler acknowledges at 1:41, there are biological differences in sex."
And in age groups. Hence, we not only have terms to distinguish between sexes (male and female) but also terms to distinguish between age groups (child and adult). For efficiency's sake, we call an adult human female a woman, a human child that's female a girl, adult human males men, and human children that are male boys.
"To clarify: Most people are born with the sex of either male (with XY chromosomes and male anatomy) or female (with XX chromosome and female anatomy). A small proportion of people are born with different chromosomal or anatomical makeups (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome)."
And those people are also either males or females, because your chromosomal makeup is not what actually makes you one or the other gender.
"Gender is the role people of a specific sex play in different cultures."
Nonsense. You are confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms. But if we were to equate them, it wouldn't be workable with the rest of your worldview. After all, if someone were to adhere to the roles/norms expected of men but identify as a woman, what would you call them?
"The phrase 'assigned at birth' refers to how most of us are raised from birth with the gender role most typical of the sex you are born."
No. Doctors *observe* our gender (aka sex) and simply report it. Even in those extremely rare cases in which our external genitalia mislead them on our gender, the truth is still found by taking a deeper look at our biology.
"Transgender people are those who intuitively identify with a different gender from their sex or assigned gender, and decide to live as it."
First problem: We can't possibly know what we "intuitively" identify with, because we've no basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference to begin with.
Second problem: What is meant by "decide to live as (a gender)"? Again, you seem to be confusing gender roles/norms with gender itself. But someone who adheres to all of the gender roles and norms of a man but doesn't identify as one wouldn't be considered one even by you.
"There are well-documented examples of transgender and non-binary people for hundreds, if not thousands of years"
Which doesn't explain the recent apparent uptick in its popularity. And if the narrative that not going along with their self-identification causes them to unalive themselves, it becomes inexplicable why there wasn't a huge amount in self-unalivings throughout history, as people were inarguably far less tolerant of this nonsense than they are today.
"For a deeper dive into the scientific research around transgender issues, check out our columnist Ethan Seigel's recent article..."
Let's not pretend that actual science can back this worldview. Science is about objective, observable reality. Transgenderism can't even produce objective, workable definitions for its terms. And neither can any of the so-called "scientists" giving the worldview lip service.
As a trans woman, I would've hoped that Judith would've been more specific and mentioned gender role, gender expression and gender identity rather than just lump the 3 all together under the umbrella term of gender. This is because 2 of those (gender role and expression) are social constructs, and gender identity is as biological as our genetic sex. Our gender identity is hard-wired into our brains during the 2nd trimester of gestation through exposure to differing amounts of androgens, but because people are lazy, identity gets lumped in with role and expression and is classed as a construct. This gives anti-trans bigots the opportunity to dismiss my identity as just a choice when it is not. It doesn't make sense to think it is. Who would risk losing family and friends, getting beaten up or worse, and being discriminated against by the state if they had a choice in the matter?
As a feminist in the early 1970s, I was harshly criticized for wanting to be a wife and mother. I was called a traitor to the cause for not disparaging that 'toxic' role. I was shocked! Because to me, the point was to have a society where everyone is valued and free to pursue WHATEVER vocation you feel called to! The idea that women could ONLY be 'equal' if they do what men do is giving up on feminism.
Most of radical feminist theory involves lesbians and queers. No wonder most women reject this brand of feminism.
hear hear!
@@aminahmad2595 Most people don't know or care
Doubtful, especially since 'toxic' definitions weren't part of the vocabulary until the late 2000s. That's also just not the philosophy of modern feminism as it didn't matter if you got married, so long as it was a consensual setup where you weren't coerced into being homebound.
@@erikfldt390 What was it called prior to the identification of the term "toxic word"?
In a nutshell: Maybe we should just be chill if someone wants to go against the norm.
and we should be chill if people refuse not to participate in you going against the norm
@@rickperez8975 Project much? No one cares about people minding their own business, it's when reactionaries do all they can to f*** with vulnerable groups that aren't in any way affecting them.
That’s fine with me. I just don’t want to hear about it! I’m sick of this topic! 🤦🏻♀️ Can something in this world be kept private!?
@@Onceuponatime889 No one forced you to watch the video.
@@erikfldt390 I didn’t. I just needed to hear first few sentences.
"My whole life, I've wanted to take a break from gender. I can never take a break from gender." So true. It's about being free to define it yourself, instead of being constantly pressured and coerced by your environment.
Of course you cannot escape influences from your environment. The language you're most comfortable in and probably think in was given to you by your environment, and affects how you think.
In most languages you cannot say "I broke my arm" unless you're a bit insane and purposefully broke your arm, but in English that's no problem. Same thing for accidentally breaking a vase. In English you can say "He broke the vase" whereas in Spanish you would say "The vase broke". The long term affects being that in English we would remember WHO did it and punishments would be more likely and in Spanish they would remember that it was an accident, and not necessarily who did it.
-ted talk How language shapes the way we think | Lera Boroditsky
It's just a silly thing to say in my opinion, as the gender discussion wouldn't even be happening without an environment to have it in.
@@DH-og5yr I'm talking about pervasive gender discrimination in its many forms. Those create a hostile environment to individual freedom, it curtails development, it stifles creativity, it's a constant struggle to break out of the narrowly defined roles the female gender is put in. And when you do conform, you really don't have equal power. We don't even know much about women's history. I don't understand why men feel compelled to comment with gaslighting explanations of the reality many girls and women experience.
Ok but why this need to "define it for yourself"? Why do you actually care? And how do you propose to fix the inevitable conflicts that arise when how you define for yourself contradicts with how others perceive you?
@@sozeytozey Because as a woman I am confronted with misogyny in its many subtle and not so subtle forms. I don't like that, it's depressing and even traumatizing. I want to live in an environment that is inclusive of diversity. Because when a hostile environment is created for girls and women who dare to step out of their very narrowly defined roles, it distracts, it stifles creativity, it obstructs development to become your genuine self. With diversity and inclusion, also men will profit from that for themselves. Misogyny is instrumental, there f.e. was a research report about why girls and women face so much street harassment. It turns out that young educated single women are harassed the most. So it's a form of oppression, these young women are seen as very threatening to the patriarchal hierarchy: autonomous women who step out of the gender role of dependent, subordinate, nurturer, caregiver, mother, wife or h*ker.
@@sozeytozey "And how do you propose to fix the inevitable conflicts that arise when how you define for yourself contradicts with how others perceive you?" I guess it's important to become activist again, glad to know there are men who also want change and who commit to women's organizations. Being a 'feminist' is very unpopular, but it's really about human rights.
The foundation of gender theory: Separate out sex and gender as two different things, and then conflate them again as it suits you.
Yep
Brutal but, you're right.
of course, and that is correct
that is exactly how i live my life
Ding ding ding
The whole point of these existentialists (in terms of gender and sexuality) was that your sex and gender does not limit your potential as a human being. That you are capable of anything you wish. You can be a feminine dude or you can be a masculine chick. It really doesn't matter. You are legit. That was the whole point but now it has taken a 180 degree turn. Now the scene is, if I feel feminine, I must become a woman, they just further go on to concrete the original traditional views expected from a particular gender. This creates a paradox. A woman is not just big boobs, nice dresses and beautiful makeup. She's more than that. Similarly a man is not just some,emotionless, hardcore, athletic, outgoing person, he is more than that.
Thank you. Your explanation of gender is better and more clearly defined than Judith
It really is just one of those things in life where you know it when you see it. Like as a kid we learn that the stove is hot.
Just because an idea pours from the human mind, it does not then follow that such an idea is worthy of being taken seriously.
You're acting like you're all about free love and people identifying how they want, but then you fall back to the fundamental culture war lie that people are forcing or pressuring others to be trans.
That's not the case. That's right wing propaganda for no other purpose than to make you hate trans people under the implication that trans people are controlling others but they aren't. Trans people just want to be accepted. That's literally it. Stop validating fascists and making the issue so much more than it is.
Exactly. Unfortunately, the cultural marxists have hijacked this cause/philosophy that is kind, and good, and egalitarian, and are using it to disrupt, destroy, and control. My daughter loves racing gokarts, martial arts, sailing, driving, camping, but she is, and always will be a girl. I actually allow her to be her "true self" by not telling her she is actually a boy trapped in a girls body and then proceed to destroy her body, life, and identity to suit old gender tropes.
What I always find interesting is for a lot of binary trans people (let’s take a transwoman for my example) they’ll often experience some of their life before they fully work themselves out in which they’ll constantly be told “you’re not a real man,” for all their feminine habits and features and interests etc. and then the moment that person goes “no actually, you’re right, I’m not a man, I’m a woman” suddenly the attack switches to “you’re not a real woman”
BD, you don't have to be anywhere near trans to hear those insults. Just be a tomboy. Just be a boy who would rather practice violin than play baseball. This is all a distraction to avoid people seeing the money leave their possession to find its way into the billionaires offshore accounts, and maybe a way to appease the crueler evangelical sects.
As a feminine gay man, this was always the case. I was made fun of for beeing too girly, but if a trans woman states her identity, then no matter how feminine she is, she is "a man". People don't care about "natural order", "biology" or "reality", they only care to excercise their control over others.
TRUE!
You are absolutely right! So are others!
Notice what you wrote about transwomen's experience of being told "you’re not a real man". We know exactly what this means. However, this statement --- “you’re not a real man” --- is not the same as that "you are a woman" nor that "you are a real woman" nor does it imply so.
However, the very moment that the person goes “no actually, you’re right, I’m not a man, I’m a woman”, at that instant the person is wrong! No, that person is still a man, but not a 'real' man, in the sense of being a manly man, macho man, or an otherwise a normal man (as difficult as it may be to define "normal" for the purposes of the current context).
And it is absolutely correct that such a person should be told “you’re not a real woman” as well as “you’re not a woman at all in any sense of the word WOMAN”.
Individuals, no matter what their preferences and behavior, should be free to live life according to their own choices for maximum happiness. Everyone's rights must be protected and advanced no matter who that person is and how he/she behaves (without impinging on others' rights, etc.).
@@fraiopatll633 So you're saying they're not a "real" man or woman? What a ridiculous notion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The person is a "real" whatever the hell they want to be, in that "man" and "woman" do not have unambiguous definitions. I'm a man that usually does not exhibit "macho" behaviour, in fact I find it pretty stupid. I'm still a real man.
"Man" and "woman" as they pertain to how we fit into society have nothing to do with what genitals you have or how masculine/feminine your look or behave. Everyone is what they feel they are, and they are a real one of whatever that is.
I suggest you watch the video again, seems like it went completely over your head.
It is may be better to stay as you were in the beginning and not listen to what whoever says... 😂
“We all want to be a moral center of our universe” sums up the stance of people living as their own God.
insane how she doesnt even realise
Yes, and so what. This is America. We have freedom of religion.
@@brianiller7104 but not freedom from immorality
@@robertsimmons8249 thats why precisly China , Iran and Russia have stopped entertaining the notion that USA should be the moral compass and police of the world with this nonsense.
I think one of the most important things I've learned about myself is that I have the power to decide who I am independent of what society thinks I should be.
We are all the same. I just happen to be born in a male human. I emerged from this human just as you and everyone else did.
We should all strive to have self empowerment without having power over others.
It's called personality - gender has come to be called that by fools who want to be something special just because of their personality.
You do not have the power to decide 'who you are', if 'who you are' refers to your fundamental construction. You can choose your personality, the qualities you choose to reinforce, even behavior. But who you are is a matter of fact, and not a matter of your personal aspirations.
@@burgerbobbelcher No. you cant - you are born either a boy, or a girl.
That's why we recognize them as boys and girls.
You cant apply your stupid fairy tale on the facts.
@Matt But do you really? Can you really emancipate yourself from physical reality? Can you be suddenly less tall? Have a different hair Color or be an animal? Or be less old?
Now a gender feminist would say that woman and men are only different with their sexual organs. For a social constructionist everything is a social construct. But is that really true? Actually we know it is not true. Research is very clear on that. Doesn’t mean we are born very differently or that society has no influence but there are such things are inherent differences. Why are there two genders if they are by default entirely the same?
@@burgerbobbelcher What a well articulated opinion.
What I love even more about Butler's performativity theory is that it cannot only be applied to gender, but also to basically every other subject position. Every group you're part of, be it an ethnicity or even a fandom of some random movie, brings its own stereotypical set of behaviours that is repeated and reinforced all the time. Makes it a very interesting tool for analysis in anthropological research
Mental illness too? Is that performative?
@@Open6musicAs someone with mental illness, I'd say yes, to an extent. There are certainly ways in which we feel people with mental illness are stereotypically "supposed" to act and think about themselves, and these ideas can shape our behavior. To be clear, "performative" doesn't mean something isn't real, just that there's a performative element to it, a way in which we've been socially taught to behave.
@@theprousteffect9717 separating "performative" from "worthless" or "not real" was a super important step in understanding how i interact with fashion and personal expression!! for a while i was pretty frustrated that a decent chunk of my interest in those areas was driven by approval & acknowledgement from others w/ similar design philosophies as opposed to being generated intrinsically-took me a long time to realize that the entire world of experimental fashion is built around performance, trading style that most people connect with at a base level with a more intimate connection with much fewer. it gave me a lot of peace with how i share my gender with others & what i hope to gain from it
She is amazing! And I totally agree
read more poetry...
Gender, I have. Sex, I'm lacking.
you just ended the whole argumnet, congrats
GOAT comment fr
That's wt I'm talking about! Pop off, Sis! 🙌🏽
Can I hear an "amen!"?
LOL
This wins
Why should someone have to have medical procedures done to affirm gender it’s not based on sex?
Because we live in a world where we think mental illness is the new norm.
gender dysphoria
100%
The entire ideology is chock full of nonsense like this.
Sex is not “assigned”, it’s an observation of the FACT.
Correct
The idea is more like assigned by the DNA in the person's body
Sex/gender is "Established" at conception, and is observed and documented at birth or before.
@@zachman5150 did ya'll morons even watch the vidoe? Sex and gender are not the same thing,
How do they do with hermaphrodite babies?
"My whole life I've been trying to take a break from gender." I feel this so hard, but with race.
these identities are unfortunately held over us and used to oppress, these form constructs and cages, but we can find liberation through breaking the constraints and fighting patriarchy and capitalism.
Exactly, no such thing.
? just take a break? I don't know but as a math student i just focus on math, why focus on race or gender if it makes you upset and tired
@@MonkeyDLuffy-gd6se Right, as a black person in the US, I'll just not focus on it. I'm sure it's just because I'm thinking about it, nothing to do with how other people treat me, every day.
Like, are you serious?
@@RadicalTrivia well just dont try to let it consume and dictate your life
The more I learn about it the more gender just sounds like a fancy way of saying sex stereotypes. Doesn’t sound like a legitimate concept at all and more like something offensive and oppressive even. I figure let’s drop the concept and stereotypes and just let people be whoever they want to be just as they are.
You're exactly right and radical feminist critics of Butler agree with you. Gender ideology is based in stereotypes and homophobia. It says that if a boy wants to wear dresses and play with dolls that he must be trans, based on the sex stereotypes of our culture. Effeminate boys often grow up to be gay, or they're just effeminate and that's ok. And there are tomboys. In the real world, we know that most men and women aren't GI Joes and Barbie dolls but have a wide range of interests and presentations. You're a man because you're an adult male or a woman because you're an adult female. That's it. Everything else (wearing makeup, shooting guns) is your personality, interest, hobby, etc. that we may or may not associate with masculine or feminine traits in any given culture.
Yeaaa mannn let’s just let go of social norms and allow potentially predatory and mentally unstable biological men into women only bathrooms, sports and spaces. Live and let live ✌️
Yes, Gender theory is and will continue to just confuse the hell out of kids, as they think they need to choose a gender. People have personalities that make them like certain things, period, and that is allowed and should be accepted in todays world.
But the current state is that trans people arient being told they are accepted for who they are, which is different from who gender ideologists are telling them what sex or gender they could be.
Couldn't have said it better myself
This is how most 'nonbinary' people probably feel. I myself think we should abolish the idea of 'people being more similar to one another than different'
Kathleen Stock & Judith Butler NEED to have a debate.
These ppl dont want debates...and this is why we just watched a video where she is alone spitting nonsensicals unchallenged...
Biological sex is a material reality. “Gender” is just stupid stereotypes about how we “should” act. Gender stereotypes should be abolished.
Gender stereotypes exist for a reason, and at numerous points in history there were attempts to change it and every single one failed, either by not winning over the majority or causing a societal collapse that reset the roles. Most recent example is the Soviet Union.
@@AntonBerglund88 the key question is WHY do gender stereotypes exist, and I think the answer is largely because they reflect and uphold social systems of power. A revolutionary movement may seek to disrupt governmental forms of power, but many will also aim to (or unintentionally) disrupt social power relations, including gender relations. So it's true that periods of widespread social change may also see changes in gender roles, but the cause and effect between 'societal collapse' and changes in gender roles (whether incidental or intentional) is reversed.
Also, neither the civil war or (highly disruptive) societal reorganisation after the 1917 revolution or the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union were caused by people attempting to change gender stereotypes. Yes, equality was a key tenet of the ideology of communism, but to believe that the USSR was ever truly communist is to buy into their propaganda. Stalin, who at 35-6 had two children with a 14-15 yr old, and who married an 18 yr old at the age of 41 then drove her to suicide, was not, it should be clear, a feminist icon.
There's also an issue in arguing that gender roles can be 'reset' as that implies there is some innate natural order, and neither philosophy nor history shows that there is a single, 'natural' way to organise society.
Furthermore, there have been many, many changes to gender stereotypes which happen outside of any organised ideological or revolutionary movement. Take what clothes are stereotypically 'masculine', 'feminine' or neutral. High heels were seen as perfectly respectable for men, and pants were totally unfeminine until relatively recently. But equally, you can see this in attitudes towards women having employment, which has changed drastically in the last 100 years (especially for the middle-upper classes).
Gender stereotypes are a reflection of social attitudes and gender roles, which are constantly being re-negotiated in our society, and this is both normal and observable.
@@elizabethh5022 Amusing wall of text, but absolutely meaningless because you are wrong.
yes, women shoul go shirtless if they want to
@@AntonBerglund88 And you've just demonstrated your inability to muster a cogent argument. FAIL.
I'm here just for the comments.
Welcome brother!
Same
enjoy the scroll
Well you'll have to be quick as there's a ton of deletions already!!! Reasonable comments I might add but obviously not woke enough so auto-delete is in effect!!!
@@jamesbrown4107woke counter 1! Y’all are silly as hell! What’s reasonable to you is probably ignorance since you unironically use “wholeness”
The more I try to understand what gender is, the less I understand what it is and what its utility is supposed to be (and this video did not help bring any answers).
I've always been a boy with a feminine temperament and mannerism and am still averse to everything typically male (TV sports, cars, competition, etc.) so I've felt like it was hard for me to fit in during my teens and early adulthood, partly because most people mistake me as being gay but mostly because I had some idea of a mold that I didn't fit in. At some point, I've come to realize that it was not society that held expectations from me but only myself and by completely rejecting the concept of gender, I was finally able to be at ease with who I am because I don't feel the need to define myself or to fit into a mold anymore.
That's why I think that the gender discussion is headed in the wrong direction, we should completely get rid of the concept instead of creating an infinite number of categories that do not mean much anyway. Sex affects our biology, so it's relevant but gender is meaningless and an endless source of confusion.
I completely agree!
dude your just gender non conforming. Nothing worng with it.
Yes! Replace "gender" by "personality" and we are back on our feet.
Well said sir.
I agree with you on gender abolition, but there are many people for whom gender is important and meaningful. I suppose the best path forward here, then, is to allow gender to become split up into more and more sublabels until the meaning and need for such labels becomes obsolete. All this, while at the same time rectifying the gender inequality currently present in our systems.
Regardless, I think the most important part is not to understand gender identity and all the ins and outs of gender theory, but to go into the world with an open mind and respect for others.
Simone de Beauvoir never said that the body is not a fact. By "becoming a woman", she meant that the cultural and social expectations to which a woman is subjected shape the way she thinks, behaves, acts and sees herself. Beauvoir never denied the physical fact that a woman is an adult female human being. Feminism was about "gender roles", not about gender as something inherent in every human being from birth or even before. She wanted to show the exact opposite of such an essentialist image of women and men.
100%. I'm tired of trans identified people, "trans right activists" and "allies" purposely misconstruing her words.
Correct. First French to English book ( translation) was worst translation ever. They fixed it later but this akward notion on gender still exists.😅
as the size of population increases, _the need for or necessary dependence on the utility of_ the traditional roles of male and female decreases, and leads to an increase in the formation of typically non-procreant, nontraditional roles which in itself is a naturally occurring phenomenon that contributes to the slowing down of if not stopping of detrimentally inordinate population growth.
Even if resources were infinite, continuous population growth would become increasingly detrimental due to the surface area of earth being finite.
I wonder if Gender is actually such a thing, or, if the goal is that each of us can be whatever we want to be, Gender becomes a pointless distinction, and at the end the only thing that's left is just biological sex not assigned to social behavior expectations and standards.
IMO critical theory and intersectionality is just individualism with more steps. But also we have to label everyone and everything.
@@NorthernRealmJackal They are both a set of methods derived from analysis of reactionary movements. Critical Theory has its origins in analyzing Nazism, which in turn was a reactionary movement against Weimar liberalism.
It wasn't the critical theorists who labeled, it was the Nazis who labeled. The critical theorists just tried to find out why and on which grounds the Nazis labeled and then started to deconstruct those labels.
Which is why critical theorists still play a major role in Nazi conspiracy theories to this day.
Intersectionality is the method of working out shared goals between oppressed groups. It's the result of recognizing that oppressions often works systemically and these systems affect several oppressed groups at once.
Gender might indeed become a "pointless distinction" once liberal ideals are fully realized, because in a sense the label only became necessary because oppressed groups were attacked for freely expressing their identity. These attacks lead to the naming of the things that are being attacked.
Hannah Arendt once said that if you are being attacked as a Jew you have to defend yourself as a Jew, not as a Citizen of the World or with reference to human rights.
The freedom liberalism promised means we get to make up the way we live, the things we come up with are not real until we make them.
I think part of the point is, and what separates gender theory from individualism, is that when it comes to gender, you can't simply choose who you are. Yes, to some extent we have free will, but we are also created and limited by the social forces that have made us. When it comes to gender, we don't simply choose to be a man or a woman, or trans, or non-binary, we are formed by the social norms of our society. Most people conform to those norms. But where the is power there is always resistance. Where there are rules, there are always exceptions. Where there are norms, there are always things that subvert those norms. It's not entirely understood how or why people become trans, but what is clear is that they have little choice in the matter. Sometime, for some reason, a person's sense of self attaches to what society tells us the opposite of what they should be. Other times, it subverts society's binary rules completely. Gender does not exist an any objective, material way, but it is certainly real in so far as it constrains and informs how we live our lives, how we think of ourselves, and how we feel and desire.
@@themovingkitchen5238
The same is true for individualism. Prior to the industrial revolution people lived in tighter communities and needed to repress their individualism in order to protect the integrity of the group.
With industrialization people moved to cities, had more privacy and somewhat anonymous relationships with the people around them, which allowed for more individual expression without threatening the integrity of social fabric.
If you ask me, gender is just what happens when you have several generations of liberally socialized people who grew up reproducing pre-liberal social norms less and less with each generation.
We're now around 2-4 generations into that and people start questioning sexual and gender norms.
It is the most obvious development ever. Nobody should be scared by it.
@@themovingkitchen5238 I understand the argument, but the more I think about it, the more it sounds like astrology and religion.
Anyways, I'm happy to live in a society where people can freely be what they want to be.
"my whole life I've been wanting to take a break from gender" same judith. same.
I'm just sorry I can't "like" you twice!
@@markfoster1520haha me too 😊
lol. Mental illness is more and more common 😊
"I wish I could take a break from these infernal new clothes!" - The Emperor
see a psychiatrist asap
Can anyone provide the timestamp for where she explains the definition of gender, because as far as I can tell the closest she got was prestenting 'gender' as a synonym for 'sexist stereotypes'?
That's always the case with these people.
1:54
@@weiserhalunke9168 thats the part Im talking about, the part where she defines gender as sexist stereotypes
@@samely8526 granted i didn't catch that part, that's not what she said, she said it's a mix of personal experience, history, wishes, and so on in connection to gender. She didn't define gender negativly as stereotypes, she described it basically as what humans (choose to) do with their biological sex.
@@weiserhalunke9168 i mean, that really does just sound like a pretentious way to say "sexist stereotypes". how exaclty is a "wish" or "desire" of a woman different to that of a man unless youre relying on sexist stereotypes? Im genuinely asking.
"Allow ourselves to be challenged and accept the invitation to revise our thinking" ~ Judith Butler
Lol
Revise ourselves to think, speak, act and live sickly to rot!
- Jude Butler
The very fundamental principle that Judith stands on is broken. And that broken idea gets hidden behind magical thinking, which is very attractive to people and narcissist's. She radicalizes her idea into a violent act by saying not thinking of gender as fluid, (which is just words in a language and not reality) as the people that are trying to "threaten democracy" or perform an "attack on gender". Her idea is broken at its core, and the has violently tribalized hate methods to cover that up with soft calm language. Oh, when she says society tells you what gender is, and not your body, that's the part that's broken, that's the part that introduces binary and "magical thinking" as real, when our bodies and the earth is real, and our thoughts are just our means of navigating and understanding the world around us. She is in a revolt of reality its self, and is inciting violence by making you think the world or society is the problem and not you, and if you question her thinking you are the problem. Making debate a hostel act, when really debate is the core necessity of science.
@@AstroSquidthank you
@@AstroSquidvery well said
If one feels that their identity doesn’t align with the gender norms assigned to people of their biological sex, why not just say “screw the gender norms”? To be who you are and say that you will not fall in line with society’s perception of what you should be seems to me a far more radical position than to say that you identify with the gender norms assigned to the opposite sex. The latter seems quite regressive.
Different people feel differently about where they fall on a spectrum of gender. That's the short answer. The idea of "gender" is still mysterious I think but society ascribes certain things to certain genders and therefore if you feel female you might gravitate toward those things that are typically female. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as a person doesn't feel forced to adopt stereotypic behavior just to call themselves a certain gender.
excellent point..well said..
and some people do, and I'm grateful to all of them. But does one require radical action from everyone who finds themselves in a position to take it, morally or practically.
additionally, pronouns are part of social role - sir or ma'am these are components of social role. I think part of the confusion is with language. When a trans man says he is a man he means "I would like to be treated in accordance with the social role we call man". Man in this sense is being used to signify the social role use of the term -- the fact that we use 'man' to mean everything from obviously socially determined things to the presence or absence of specific body features is absolutely a problem linguistically and causes a lot of strife and confusion.
Perhaps we shouldn't do that. But if so, why do we so regularly use the word "man" when chromosomes or gametes have absolutely nothing to do with the situation? Clearly the way the word is used is being used both in situations where biology matters and in ones where it absolutely does not.
I am not sure why there is a categorical line between taking on the social role of man except for the pronouns and doing the same thing but also changing pronouns? if someone wants to live the social role of man, up to and including the way men tend to address each other or try to look more like the way men are taught they should strive to look, that's up to him.
If someone else wants to actively challenge the categorical lines we put between the social roles of man and woman, and call herself a woman while acting in many of the same ways, and be referred to as she/her, good for her.
I don't demand one action or the other, and I hardly see why my demands even matter here anyway. I think whatever our future understanding of gender is can and will have to accommodate both of these desires. What we mean by gender role is always changing, and what we put in or outside of the bounds of any category shifts with society and culture.
I'd love to live in a world where there are no gender roles at all, where we treat the sex marker no differently than we treat the eye color or height markers on our IDs. But that is not the world we live in, and I don't want to place the burden of getting there squarely on the shoulders of the people most harmed by this current system. It's not my place to tell them to take one path or another in living their life. Both paths you mention are radical in their own ways, imo, but that hardly matters - people are not obligated to be iconoclasts.
I don’t think that the desire to transition is a desire to be radical or progressive. It’s just a desire to live and present to the world in a way which more closely aligns with your felt sense of gender. Whether it’s ‘radical’ or ‘regressive’ doesn’t really come into it for most people suffering with gender dysphoria.
“To be a woman or man”. Is she talking about biology or psychology? She herself conflates sex and gender. How can sex be ‘assigned’ at birth but then gender is nurtured? I thought that she accepted that biological differences were factual? Is she contradicting herself?
My question about gender really boils down to this: is gender even necessary? To me, gender is a frankly useless category. Perhaps it's worse than useless; perhaps it's actually damaging. Sex differences are sex differences due to immutable characteristics, like physical form and the functions of certain hormones in the body of which we have no control, but then taking those characteristics and creating an *expectation* of a person from them seems silly to me. The words 'masculine' and 'feminine' derive from these immutable differences, and that is also fine to recognise, but it becomes not fine the second it is expected of you to fulfil them like some kind of performative role. Remove the performance from it, be the person you want to be, and gender will have absolutely no use or value to anyone at all.
The concept of Gender as something that is distinct from Sex is extremely new. Like, 1950's new. Coined by people who performed experiments that would today be illegal, and likely lead to a life of condemnation.
Go ahead and look up John Money, and/or the history of the word gender.
a slate to its use, i think i see your point but i disagree. a father is a fulfilment of the role. a mother is a fulfilment of the role. both should be encouraged because they are better than the mentally ill or narcisist alternatives with regards to a functioning peaceful society. we all have the capacity to choose to not fulfil our roles but to do so is pretty obviously to our detriment
@@dkillips A father will typically be a certain way on average, and a mother too, but these roles are essentially the same; they are both carer roles, taking on different responsibilities, as it's too difficult to do it all. If the mother is the breadwinner and the father the person who cares for the home, the child is given the same support. Although this is less typical, it doesn't act as a detriment to anyone. If you are a parent and don't fulfil the role of parent in any way, then you're simply a bad parent, regardless of sex. Gender doesn't need to be a part of any of this. In fact, it's worse, because you're disallowing people to do what feels right to them, especially if it so happens that you don't adhere to your sex's "typical" traits. That turns out to be a lot of people mind you; there's more variance of temperament within each sex than there is between them.
I agree with you!! Have been thinking the same way and finally someone said this
I have often heard people defend their sexist arguments with ''men and women are different''. Yes Sherlock, obviously they are, but pointing out some people are born with a penis and some with a vagina doesn't validate claiming women should stay at home and watch the kids, as if they may not have any other dreams or aspirations.
Even tho it is theoretically true, men and women ARE different, I always wince when I hear someone say it because 99% of the time they actually mean the nasty, disproven stuff that is sexist.
A good rule of thumb is to only focus on the physical sex differences, because it's been proven time and time again that, apart of some hormonal differences, the male and female brain are pretty much the same and think the same. Also, people don't seem to realize how much society influences the way someone behaves. The famous Scully effect was documented when there was a huge surge in women in the STEM field. And that is just ONE show. Then imagine how impactful a millenia of gender norms can influence someone.
To finish it off, in most countries, the average IQ is so devastatingly close between men and women, it breaks your heart when you see people put such a huge emphasis on gender.
Problem is... it is all theory and is not fact.
and its also a very dumb theory, with multiple contradictions and use of language manipulation... she even admits is about to alter language to alter our percpetion of reality... is not only wrong is evil, devious, manipulative, and dangerous.
so is gravity, relativity, and many other things we accept as truth in everyday life because theories are based upon facts
ignorance is the reason of ALL confusions in human beings. there is no right, there is no wrong. there is only ignorance or realisation. Realise your own being and live to honour it.
There is right and wrong. For example bullying is wrong. If you come to the realization that you enjoy bullying people, and live to honour that, you're obviously doing harm. Likewise sexism, misogyny and homophobia are wrong. If you come to the realization that you want to define not only yourself, but everyone else in terms of a sexist, misogynistic, homophobic ideology, you're causing harm and need to look within. Humans have evolved to have an ethical sense. Clearly we should practice using it more and not just indulge our own wants and desires.
I "transitioned from male to female" in 1993-1995.
Now at 64 years of age, I'm just me. I still take estradiol for osteoporosis.
In California I am, legally, female. Here, in North Carolina where I retired, I am legally male.
At this point in my life, having lived my life as both genders, I see what Ivy Compton Burnett meant.
It really doesn't matter.
I don't regret a single moment of my life.
I don't even regret the sexual harassment, even R@>#, I've endure living as a woman, along with the general disregard from men, unless they wanted a sandwich or sex.🙄
It is what had to happen.
It was my path through this life.
At this moment, having been on SSRIs for nearly thirty years, I have no libido, I don't care what pronouns people call me. I just go along with whatever they assume. As long as they are being minimally respectful, what difference does it really make?
In short, I've spent a lifetime going through the changes, I've agonized over each part.
I've come to realize that it doesn't matter that much.
De-transition? Transition?
I wont recommend either to anyone.
I'll only say that it's for you to decide where your path goes.
I'm just 'over' it.
It's simply what it took to be "comfortable in my own skin."
-weezi-🙏💖🙏💜🙏
Love this! Glad you found happiness.
god bless you.... I went to a socialist march here in Los Angeles and I was so happy to have trans people walking beside me. I got a glimpse of a potential future that MLK was talking about. I want to respect trans people... everyone deserves dignity. Keyword EVERYONE
To each thier own. ❤
@@Gundum good for you. So long you’re happy. ❤
Judith has a brilliant take on this. Protect her at all costs
I was born a female, I don't focus on my gender as much as I do my personality traits. Which can be more masculine or feminine. Not everyone will match your personality and that's fine. It's a healthier way to look at yourself.
Congratulations! You weren't born with an incongruence between your gender and your sex. How lucky for you. I wish I'd been that lucky, but I wasn't. That doesn't make me unhealthy, it just makes me transgender.
I believe this is a healthier way to articulate it. Personality trait/temperament.
@reachtrev69 The five broad personality traits are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Where do you fit gender incongruence into any of those? Or are you proposing to add gender incongruence as a new personality trait?
@@Kleineganz You are unhealthy. There's nothing feminine or masculine other than the body. If you like dresses, wear dresses, but that doesn't make you a woman, your body does. If you like to work in the army or drive a truck, do it, without mutilating yourself, because truck drivers are not supposed to only have a penis between their legs. But accept what you have. Accept your body the way it is. Act the way you want! You just reject who you are, and therapy is the answer.
youre a woman, you were meant to be one. youre not a man, you will never be one, you cant be. Science dictates this. Yes, society may be cruel and setup behavioral expectations. This is your lot in life. You were born to your parents in a specific country. You can pick your friends, you cant pick your family and you cant pick your gender. Will you be miserable not accepting social norms for a woman. YES YOU WILL. Thats a choice. If youre prepared to deal emotionally with the consequences of people looking at you trying to be a man when youre really a woman, best of luck to you. I dont have to play along with a fantasy. I must live in my reality, the one i was born into. Its LIFE. Embrace it, stop fighting it. Women are different than men in so many wonderful ways. Find a man that adores you for the woman you were meant to be. No woman can love you that way, ever. My first wife so so wonderfully feminine until she stepped onto a basketball court. She never wanted to lose. Its ok to have attributes more closely linked to the other gender, no argument there. It makes you so amazingly unique as the woman that you are.. There is a man out there, right now. He is seeking YOU and everything you are. Let him find you and make you the happiest you can be. Hope is so much more desirable that despair.
Butler keeps saying that sex is "assigned" at birth, BUT IT IS NOT.
Sex is RECOGNISED at birth. And that is the main difference.
Terminology, when not used properly, can sell any idea, agenda, philosophy or dogma, and people buy it.
People with AIS are assigned female at birth, despite having testes and XY chromosomes...
Expressions like those are describing objective reality. In objective reality there are no exceptions. If there are then you're not being objective.
You cannot say "all things are green, except when they're not" because you're not saying anything of any substance or worth hearing.
your preference for “recognize” changes nothing about butler’s argument or the gender discussion. the doctor recognizes sex characteristics and then assigns a sex category to the body usually based on genitalia. butler wouldn’t disagree with this
@@user-pd2kt2dv5i it's not preference, but scientific research and methods. If you are not aware of the difference between "assigned" and "recognised" I recomend watching 5min speech of dr. Grossman. And then try to reply.
Medically she's correct, sex *is* assigned at birth, the doctor literally assigns you a sex based on a checklist of medical criteria.
This is a useful distinction to make because of intersex people, some intersex people are born with ambiguous genitalia, somewhere between male or female genitals, the doctors have to make a call as to how to assign that person's sex and sometimes they get it wrong.
@@treeaboo Nope... Sex is established at conception and is observed and documented at birth or before. No,
Gender (There are only 2 male/female... That's it) is established at conception and is observed at birth or before.
Way too many conflate gender/sex with personality traits and temperament (There are a ton, and none are gender exclusive-- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), and gender roles (Which vary from culture to culture, society to society and country to country--BUT, they all refer to the roles of males and females in those various cultures, countries, and societies... Without exception), as though they're all synonymous and that's a massive error.
All women are born female, all men are born male and neither is a social construct, feeling, fetish nor a costume.
The main problem the trans activists have is that life is based in objective reality and the trans imagination just doesn't override the vast majority of people's capacity to discern the difference.
Your DNA literally organizes your physical body.
DNA dictates the production of objective biological differences between males and females. 100% of the population is either male or female, even intersex people. If they have a Y chromosome, they are heterogametic and male. If not, they are homogametic and female. But you knew that because you've actually educated yourself on these conditions, right?
Personality traits and temperament (Neither of which is gender exclusive -- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), aren't synonymous with gender or gender roles.
There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have.
Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realizing that their discomfort simply stems from not realizing that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define.
This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives).
Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognized as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into.
To believe we as individuals can have 100% control over our identity in society, what we are seen as by others, in interaction with, and in relation to, society/the world/physical existence is a fool's errand, it is a delusional understanding of reality and existence.
It seems to me that the only that has gone 'fluid' is the meaning of the word gender itself.
So if gender means that little and people can do whatever they want with it until the point where it stops meaning anything, how is it still a distinction of any relevance, to which some people still want to identify as.
I ID as a dog on Thursdays and a woman of colour and lezbyan on the weekends; Mondays I play the white man with a gun telling black folks to .... well Narc. Chaos = where next ?
It is likely that, if we're able to reach a point in which we're free to gender ourselves as we please, gender will become a useless concept, yes, but we're not at that point yet.
Who says it means "that little"though? Fluidity doesn't equal lack of meaning. If I change professions from carpenter to systems engineer it means my profession has been fluid, but it doesn't take away the meaning of either of those professions, the same goes for gender. It's a role we play in society, that role can change, but at any point it has a current state and that state is absolutely 100% meaningful.
@@empireoflightz the actual difference between changing genders and changing professions is that there is something physically tangible in the essence of switching professions. You can not be a carpenter without in some way working with your hands, use a hammer, carry dry-wall, raising houses. Switching proffesions is not something you can do on a whim, it must meet certain criteria.
Whatever those critera might be, these criteria are something which are verifiable by others. The problem I see with gender is that the concepts revises itself when it gets criticized, and now the term is so ubituqous that gender can essentially be anything, all the time. I could, for all you know, have changed my gender 10 times writing this comment, but I couldnt have changed my profession 10 times. The problem as to why this concept of gender isn't useful is because there is no way for you to verify whether or not i changed my gender. What we have created is an un-verifiable part of my identity which is totally free from physical and biological reality. To me that sounds alot like a spiritual soul. If concept comes to mean anything and everything, ultimately that term comes to mean nothing.
@Freddielovefootball this is typical paranoia when things change in society, as they inevitably always do, people start imagining extreme scenarios as if they're the natural continuation of the change that is happening, when they're really not. "I could've changed my gender 8 times while writing this" well the only way that could happen is if you're extremely gender fluid, and those are extreme rare cases. The vast majority of people have one gender which reflects how they actually feel inside, what role they feel they can most authentically play in society and so on, and this gender doesn't change throughout their live. What does change for a small minority of people (trans people) is that they realise that gender isn't the one they were assigned at birth and have most of the physical/biological characteristics of, and so a transition needs to happen for them to live their healthiest and happiest lives. Only a very small minority out of this small minority might be "gender fluid" in the sense that they might then at some point see it necessary to transition again, or indeed could do so 8 times a day. I say this as a NB person who knows a lot of NB and trans people, I don't know anyone like that so I can't tell you much about them. But to then say gender doesn't mean anything anymore just because it's more abstract for this tiny tiny group of people, is an extremely exaggerated extrapolation of a particular scenario.
The vast majority of trans people want their body and tangible gender manifestation to be a very particular way that reflects their gender identity, and they generally want to stay that way, to the extent that current medicine allows us to. For most of us there's a clear role too that we play in society according to our gender and our physical changes are made in order to comply better with what society expects from and how it reacts to certain genders. In the case of non binary people that isn't then mostly just a made up abstract thing but a case of not being able to fit into traditional binary gender roles in very specific ways, and so we try to ask for more flexibility from society as far as those roles and expectations by expressing ourselves as neither man nor woman, and while each of us might have a unique mix of characteristics from either of those genders, that mix isn't generally subject to changing any more than a cis person might become slightly more feminine or masculine during the course of their lives.
Without Simone de Beauvoir here to explain her own views, we need to be clear that Butler is presenting Butler’s own interpretation of de Beauvoir’s writings - and that that interpretation is contested and criticised by other philosophers.
Beauvoir was a pedo
Simone de Beauvoir is from mid 20th century. The scientific study of sexuality advanced a lot in these last decades, but Butler ignores it, and thinks she can take ideas about sexuality out of her head (and the heads of other armchair philosophers who also ignore scientific research).
5:16 the most misinterpreted sentence "one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one" basically means the exact opposite this woman is claiming. De Beauvoir is talking about 'the concept/idea' of a woman as a role in society, not an actual woman (an adult human female). The meaning is that the concept 'woman' is accomplished when females play the role society wants them to: wife, mother, beautiful, carer, passive... That's what de Beauvoir is criticising, not affirming. The book is called "the second S EX" for a reason 🤦🏻♀️ because it's about the oppression women suffer because of their s ex, not their gender identity or other made up things.
I'm just leaving the comment in case anyone is interested.
@@4651adri if you qualify gender identity as "made up" then I think you may be the one misinterpreting...
@@4651adri Beauvoir never equated "woman" with just "adult human female". She instead spent 800 or so pages exploring the question of "who is woman, and why is she the other?", and used "woman" and "feminine" often interchangeably - which, to be fair, has also to do with the French language.
AND she was a major existentialist, while gender transition - defining oneself to live authentically - is pretty much the most existentialist thing one can do.
I'm glad she started out stating that her views are just her opinions, it makes me comfortable and confident in listening to her views.
I can't stand scholars who think their opinions are facts.
I cannot abide people who also don't recognize that when it rains the pavement gets wet. Narcissism rains in " my interpretation is as good as reality " . Who we are in a final way is not the same as biological reality .
@@QuintaJoryal I don't get why. Statements of opinion and fact are of different qualities. You shouldn't need to explain that your view on something is your opinion. It's so annoying to me.
@@wgo523I think this is not obvious at all for plenty of people
I also find it trivial and annoying
Yes and no. On the one hand, Butler is directly concerned with a critique of the ontologisation of the empirical, which is why she would never call her arguments "facts". That would be reflexively rather unfavourable, because it would also imply a claim to unquestionable correctness. On the other hand, it is not just a matter of mere views or opinions, but in this respect an ethical postulate, which she also justifies rationally.
So glad you feel "comfortable." 😂😂😂
If gender is a social construct then why should I adhere to it? If I want to disregard "gender" and instead only use biological sex why can't I do that?
Perfect! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
have you ever had sex with a biological human?
money is also a social construct, and we've all tried to find a way out
Social construct means that it's a construct society imposes upon you. You personally might decide to disregard it, but others will still have an idea of what 'gender' you are.
@@torginus Just because the society imposes a social construct doesn't determine whether or not that social construct is valid or correct. I deem it invalid and arbitrary. You can impose it all you want, but myself and the majority of the population refuse to adhere to it.
Sex has to do with a set of biological attributes, such as our chromosomes, reproductive and sexual anatomy, hormone functions, etc.
❤
*grabs popcorn and opens the comments* 👀
Same 🤣
😂😂
I actually couldnt wait for the video to end to read the comments 😂
We starting a flame war in the TH-cam™ comments section with this one🔥🔥🔥
This argument will not end anytime soon and it's the same points from both sides every time tbh
"the body is not a fact' i think most people would not agree with this. How could we be anything if our bodies don't define us in some way.
The problem with these sorts of short bite sized quotes is that they are always plucked out of a body of text which strips it of meaning and context. If you really want to understand what the person who stated “the body is not a fact” actually meant, then you need to go and read all of what they wrote. Don’t just assume you understand better a subject based on a short 6 word sentence.
@@CharlieNoodleslol
@@johnsmith7140 ?
@@CharlieNoodlesbeautifully said.
Our bodies define our biological functions. Not the person we become in society, our personality or who we love. The body is not a fact, it's a tool, a shell we use to navigate the world. But we'll always exist beyond our bodies.
Notice how she glossed over the idea that sex is a category BASED ON BIOLOGY that has a very real and measurable impact on a variety of physiological characteristics and behavioral characteristics. Her denial of the role biology plays in sex and gender is mind-numbingly stupid. Trying to gaslight everyone.
because this video is not about highlighting her thoughts on sex but gender? if you want to here more about her thoughts on this, read a book by her. bodies that matter goes into it a bit
Sex and gender are the same
@@johnsmith7140
1. Some people claim the words mean the same thing and for any individual it is fixed
2. Some also claim the words mean the same thing but for any individual can be changed
3. Some claim the words mean different things but neither can be changed for an individual
4. and 5. Some believe the words mean different things but only one can be changed for an individual
How refreshing to see Butler's core argument laid bare, with none of the usual prestidigitation, with all its superficiality, all its glaring faults on display. What stands revealed is an arrogant intellect in a dialogue mostly with itself, whether in blind or conscious denial of the materialist critique of gender, it hardly matters. Disregarding the whole long arc of feminist criticism dating back to Wollstonecraft. It's egocentric, and consequently superficial.
At every step in her narrative, there's a dimension missing - the why. WHY are the roles we're permitted to perform by the discipline of gender carved up in the way they are? Is it merely *arbitrary* that certain ways of being are allocated to men, and others ways of being to women? When we dig into that, we approach the TRUE questions of freedom, equality and justice concerning gender - gender is a power relation, perhaps the original power relation. And we begin to approach the real ANSWERS to the challenge that power relation poses for us, namely, how can we transcend it, leave it behind? Not merely play within the frame it imposes.
The trouble with Judith's version of gender is that it would have us embrace the hierarchy, to think about ourselves in its terms - not to surpass it. It's actually a profoundly reactionary position, beyond the progressive surface. So all she's got left is to misrepresent those of us who disagree with her as being pathologically gripped by fear. A sin, effectively. Rather than engage with her critics meaningfully, she consigns us to the ranks of evil-doers.
I really like it when they mention other peers in the field, it gives more insight of how great humans can be
I was overjoyed when Simone De Beauvoir was mentioned! She's my hero.
Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.”
Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes).
Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay:
In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation.
She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child.
And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful.
And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]
@@ab-lk9oi your boy Derrick doesn't understand Judith Butler.
I know that you didn't begin feeling angry about Judith Butler's theories because you were doing reading about incest, so what is your actual problem, and why have you decided to crusade against her with this nonsense?
@@ab-lk9oiSo, Queer theory is when.. No querness is involved? Instead, Queer theory is um, let's see... child abuse?
Actual brainrot of an argument.
@@ab-lk9oiDerrick hasn’t done you any favours. Read the whole chapter. She’s not saying what you think she’s saying.
Gender theory explained, managing never to define what gender is in the first place. That’s quite the feat.
she sounds like bill clinton when they asked him just about anything. ON one hand......
This video isn't going to provide you with a one sentence zinger. Much like race, gender requires cross disciplinary academic study. If you want to listen to what she's saying, she will provide you with an in-depth breakdown of gender and gender identity. This is an expert who has dedicated her life to academic research and sociological questioning. Assuming you know better just because you disagree is insanely arrogant.
@@wynburke It isn't a matter of disagreement. People just want to have it explained to them. Before getting into all the details, what does 'gender' actually mean?
Imagine coming into a video about a subject as vague and subjective from culture to culture as gender, thinking it's going to provide you with a rigid definition.
@@user-vt9xz7vo6x But are you able to offer at least a start? Give us a clue.
Can someone please explain to me this trans phenomena? Last time I checked, gender and sex are forms of social categorization. How is this not just a manifestation of a psychogenic epidemic?
There are females with a masculine temperament and there are males with feminine temperaments. Why are we bypassing that fact as a culture and creating more terms which in turn creates more complexity? Someone please make this make sense to me.
My interpretation is that (i) certain people want the freedom not to conform to those social categorisations, and (ii) certain other people want the freedom to conform to those social categorisations even if they "officially" belong to the "other" one.
You point out that many people have always historically not conformed with a categorisation ("There are females with a masculine temperament and there are males with feminine temperaments") and, although you don't make this explicit, I think you are stating that that's ok and society accepts that, so there isn't something here that needs to be fixed. Different people have differing reasons why they don't accept that line of reasoning. Overall, I think these all boil down to the claim that they have found that they have suffered oppression, discrimination, a lack of acceptance or limitations on their freedom just to be a bit different.
@@digitaurus These social categorizations are exactly that: social. Which means that the categories are dependent on what the society deems appropriate in terms categorizing other humans at the most fundamental level. I understand your point in terms of allowing people the freedom to identity with what they feel is who they are but the issue is that people do not get to choose their identity. One’s identity is dependent on others. Not on the person themselves. You are a parent because of your children. You are a supervisor because of your job. You are a sibling because of your other siblings. The list goes on…your identity is an amalgamation of all your connections to the social world.
The word “conforming” is giving the impression that these categories are somehow oppressive. They can only be seen as oppressive if the people who are criticizing them do not understand what the purpose of these categories are. The purpose is to reduce the complexity of our social interactions. When you have certain individuals claiming what their identities are and insisting that others abide by these NEW claims, it causes more complexity because the identity now becomes something that is ever-changing by one person. I cannot stand behind a doctrine that is creating more complexity for the sake of feeling “accepted”. It muddies the waters too much. If one understands that these labels are made to reduce the complexity of social interactions and are dependent on your relationship with others and the world, then it is astonishing to me how one can buttress this ideology.
What needs to be “fixed” exactly? That we have men and women and underneath that blanket category is the existence of some variance based on temperamental differences? If it isn’t broken, then it doesn’t need to be fixed. This entire phenomena in my estimation is creating more complexity. It is not solving any problems. It is only complicating things and we as conspecifics have an obligation to question, speak up and give some pushback when something this radical becomes widespread. The answer cannot simply be, “they are a minority, they are oppressed and they lack acceptance so we need to do what they say so they feel accepted and everyone is happy”. That cannot be the cure. Especially when a cure is not needed.
@@OGTelos Thanks. Do you disagree with my explanation of the trans phenomena? I was just trying to provide you with an explanation. I don't have a dog in this fight personally.
@@OGTelos I'm happy also to give my own reactions to your thoughts if that's helpful. I think Butler would agree with you that "categories are dependent on what the society deems appropriate ... people do not get to choose their identity". I am not a specialist, but my understanding is that the field of research that Butler inhabits recognises an intimate link between language and the creation of "categories ... society deems appropriate". This is one explanation why people like Butler focus so much on language: they believe that if you change the language then you will change society. Of course, it's very hard to change language, and the cause/effect relationship between language and the social categories is at the core of much of the heat.
Regarding the word "conforming", some people see the social categories as oppressive and others embrace them. You have pointed out that "categories are dependent on what the society deems appropriate ... people do not get to choose" so I think everyone agrees that these categories are imposed on someone. Curiously, many trans people actually want to be allowed to conform; they want to take on often quite heavily accentuated category standards, just not for their "correct" category. Speaking personally, this desire to conform is actually quite hard to understand; as you point out, society today offers a great deal of laxity within each gender category. But many people seem to feel strongly differently to me.
You suggest that the purpose of social categories is "to reduce the complexity of our social interactions". I don't think you mean that this is the sole purpose, but if you do then I would personally disagree. The social category "parent" (which I proudly carry) carries many implications, privileges and obligations with it, in addition to offering a simple explanation of a link between myself and two young women living a hundred miles or so away.
I agree that the waters are being muddied by the changes and would suggest that this is the purpose: muddying linguistic waters changes society, in the view of Butler and others.
Regarding whether something does or does not need to be fixed, I can only refer back to my original answer. They think something does need to be fixed, you do not. I find myself somewhere in between - if such a position is possible! All best
Challenging existing ideas is good, but those new ideas must also be open to being challenged.
By challenge you mean 1. The same thing I've heard and already explained a million times like some kind of tour guide simply because people expect a explanation for my existence instead of just letting me live, and these aren't simple short topics, it's like giving a whole lecture 2. Really dumb stuff, like extremely dumb stuff, religious bullshit I don't believe in and that should have nothing to do with me, people who don't believe in individual liberty (even though they might claim to be fans). 3. Asking inappropriate questions about my genitals and how I have sex.
There's a certain point you just need to mind your own business and let people live and practice their own individual liberty, you know?
@@No-ky3kb Atleast they stopped with the "leave the kids alone" bs.
@@frenchfry4017 Fortunately they'll never stop!
@@No-ky3kbI'm a gay atheist and a socialist, and I don't believe in gender. Gender cannot be observed or measured objectively (that's why we're told to ask for pronouns), therefore it is an unproven hypothesis. Butler manipulates and distorts almost everything in her video and she never references any science throughout. Her manipulations and lies have inspired terrible confusion in LGB children, she has given license for males to invade lesbian spaces, she is a lazy philosopher, a fraud, and the imo the worst L to have ever lived. Shame on her for all of the hurt and pain her lies have caused LGB people.
Isn‘t that happening? New ideas always try to propose new ideas to the Status Quo, so to everyone else. So it‘s normal that they get challenged.
I LOVE that Big Think never gives a platform to someone who yells their viewpoint at us and says that anyone that disagrees with them is evil and wrong. They're always measured and rational adults who understand their own viewpoint AS WELL AS THE VIEWPOINT OF THE OTHER SIDE of the issue they're discussing. It brings perspective and understanding to issues I have yet to find in other channels.
Lol then don’t watch
@@ht21 Did you not read my comment or did you think I was being sarcastic? I wasn't being sarcastic, that was a sincere comment.
So? This video explicitly puts you in the bag of the mass murdering SS if you don't accept her drivel. Multiple times she calls arguments against her stupid ideas an attack. Castrating and slaughtering the gullible victims of the plastic genitals industry for profit is called freedom by her. Questioning that is called an attack on democracy by her. How can someone be more malicious?
Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.”
Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes).
Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay:
In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation.
She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child.
And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful.
And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]
Big Think is also Woke and forces female representation in their videos in spite of the scientific fact that females are substantially outnumbered by Males in high IQ occupations for purely genetic reasons, meaning that it is appropriate for Males to continue outbumbering Females as science communicators and that their agenda is ridiculous.
Sex is not assigned at birth 🤦🏻♂... sex is stablished in the womb and then is observed and acknowledged.
I think you are stupid
I am not called she cause i want to be seen as a woman, I want it as a descriptor of my biological reality and the issues i face because of it. People have the right to agree with their biology being equated to their societal reality which i haven't seen acceptance for on the other side.
that's called being cisgender and it is absolutely accepted by everyone. it is actually a societal norm.
I’m a middle aged adult. I feel like I am still discovering how I feel most natural in relation to gender expression. I’m grateful that I have grown up in a period of time where this is something I can be open to and explore.
your growing up in times of high mental illness huni
@@user-ct1yy3pt3x an under understatement
Good for you
Loser
@@nedab1067and around people closed minded like yourself, but there is nothing to worry about, man will always want to hate what doesnt compensate them.
Why do I torture myself watching videos about this subject
The algorithm knows you just can’t stop watching the stupidest culture war of our times. I prefer Covid to this trans nonsense.
then don’t
Dude, just prepare for the purge like I do.
Asking the same thing myself...
Same here. I guess I just want to know "other side" so we can better understand each other when talking about these issues.
The more I watch their apologists the more I am astonished by their dogmaticism, logical inconsistency and factual and logical errors.
...perhaps, when someone asks your gender, since there is no straightforward answer on this, may I suggest - "..it varies?"
'Many people who refuse to allow trans people to define themselves is that they feel their own self definition is destabilized.' Many people have absolutely no problem with people, trans or otherwise, defining themselves however they like. It's when those people demand that other people agree with their definitions of themselves that the difficulties arise. And by the way, Berkeley Professor, everyone does not want to be the moral police. But perhaps all gender activist do.
100% true
Do you use any of the following (somewhat euphemistic) terms?
• gay
• homophobia/homophobe
• transphobia/transphobe
• trans-sexual
• transgender
• cis gender
• sex worker
• capitalism/capitalist
• any gender-specific pronoun other than he/she, him/her or his/her
Then CONGRATULATIONS - you are (either knowingly or unwittingly) a silly shill for the loony left!
He didn't intend on explaining gender theory he simply intended on making a moral case :)
Her work has been translated into 27 languages and the common thread is it still results in gibberish.
"We have to allow ourselves to be challenged and accept the invitation to change." Thank you Judith for your insight, knowledge, experience and pedagogy. Listen, reflect, learn.
Yes, yes, to the mental and moral degradation that falls under the name of "freedom". You are really ignorant to the point of being affected by one video.
Here she is being prescriptive, rather than revelatory. Before Butler got paid attention to, the focus was on BEING YOURSELF, and expressing yourself how you wanted to. Being yourself isn't what she's saying - and that's why what she's saying is dumb.
In other words, "Change your opinion to MY point of view, because it is the correct one"
For Butler 2+2= what ever she wants it to.
@@johnsimspon8893 It's not even close to logic bro it just says nonsense with some rudimentary evidence
Quote:- "Sex is assigned to infants that has importance within medical and legal worlds" - Crumbs, that's a very strange definition.
Firstly - why do we now say that sex is *assigned* at birth? That implies it is someone's opinion, they could have gone either way in their decision. Sex is not assigned, it is *observed* . There is no opinion involved, the decision could not go one way or the other, it is either one or the other, it is *observed* at birth.
Secondly - sex is "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions".
sex is not observed at birth. they don’t test your chromosomes or your gonads or know for certain which secondary sex characteristics you’ll have.
and sex is a spectrum, not a binary. if it were a binary, intersex and transexual people wouldn’t exist
If The Babylon Bee made a parody of this it would be indistinguishable from the original.
pls share the link i need to see this xD
content warning: shower thoughts, but is the answer to dysphoria really to encourage people to change everything about their body? like even if it is safe and effective, gender is STILL societally bound by sex in most places. rather than fighting and trying to streamline highly subjective concepts that differ from culture to culture, isn't it more important to realize and tell younger people that neither sex NOR gender/pronouns/voice/body type define us and make the best of what we have? instead of trying to define our gender, should we try to stop gender from defining us?
maybe it's not the answer. Maybe people are right when they say that changing the body you have through hormones/surgery/etc so that you can go from one box to another is ultimately futile for some people. Maybe the push to liberate people from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, when done wrong, makes some people feel like, oxymoronically, their right to define themselves is being taken away- and no matter how far that strays from the original movement, that feeling is valid. But I don't actually think that "people should have the right to change their bodies" and "we should stop gender from defining us" are contradictory statements. I don't think transgender liberation involves trying to "streamline highly subjective concepts", nor do I think most trans people want to.
I'm transgender. I have dysphoria. I'm not sure about medically transitioning yet, but I have gone by a different name, used a bunch of pronouns other than the ones I was socialized with, and shrugged at so, so many different people asking me what my gender was and how I knew. I don't know what my gender is!
And what I've found, in both trans and cis people, is even when people are very confident in what gender they are, if you ask the average person what makes them a woman, or a man, or a bunch of other things, and what makes them sure- they'll get a little foggy eyed, and you'll get a bunch of different answers.
Your very conservative grandmother might tell you it's because she was born a woman, and she's never had a problem with being one. Your transgender schoolmate might tell you it's because he always wanted to go through male puberty, and when he didn't, he knew there was something wrong with him. Your cisgender uncle might confess that, although he's never felt the need to be traditionally masculine, he has always felt like a man- and although others might not have understood that distinction, he knew it didn't really matter. Your genderfluid cousin might tell you it's because xe likes wearing flowery dresses and suits, likes being Mr. and Ms., and likes being pretty and handsome, and when people tried to force xim into one category, xe disavowed all unchanging labels.
the fact is that it's very difficult to stop gender from defining you when *so* many things in society do that for you- from primary school lunch tables to sleepovers, from school sports to locker rooms to public showers, from clothing shopping to period pad packaging to advertisements what your sister and brother get for birthday presents, nearly everything you will do in life comes with the connotations of male vs. female, boys vs. girls, pink vs. blue, and somewhere in there, whatever the hell is going on with the boy moms of tiktok.
That's fine for some people. a lot of people won't notice, or they'll take it as the way life needs to be in intelligent societies. But others might take issue with that binary. whether it is because they want to sit with the boys and the girls at lunch, or because they feel like those systems are used to oppress women, or because they don't think they were given the manual to those rules, or because they want in on the other side, there are always going to be some people who are very uncomfortable with being told, "this is how your life needs to be, and everyone else is fine doing what they need to do". And, like I've already said, even if it seems like a mere sliver of the larger population, those feelings deserve to be heard. What you're describing isn't impossible- I think it's a good goal! I think a lot people would benefit from knowing that their gender/pronouns/voice/body type don't need to define their lives. But it's very hard to constantly have that other voice telling them that gender is a fact, sex is a fact, body type is a fact, and any and all discomfort with the cards you were dealt makes you stupid and sick. Maybe in a utopian society, gender/pronouns/voice/body type wouldn't define the way you were treated in a society at all, but they do, and since we're social creatures, that does define a big part of your life (unless you live alone in a cave underground, which, with the way things are going right now on the surface, can't blame ya).
I think you're right when you say that we should make the best of what we have, but I also think that sometimes, making the best of what we have involves shaking things up a little. A man, trans or cis with a very high voice shouldn't feel like he needs to change his voice to be accepted as a man, but what if he's talked to his therapist and wants to start voice training so that he's treated better? Is that okay? If it is, is that only because he's been assessed by a medical professional? is it okay if he's cis but not if he's trans? if it's not, why? Is trying to change this aspect of his body a way of avoiding addressing his negative self image, or will it help? Should he suck his discomfort up and deal with it to inspire all the other high-voiced men out there?
I ask these questions honestly because like I've already said, I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend I do. These are things that I debate, both with myself and others. Is the right to change yourself the same as the right to self expression? Are those rights inalienable? Does a random lawmaker you've never met who lives ten hours away from you have the right to tell you what parts of yourself you should love, and which ones you should hate?
I think people change themselves all the time, both temporarily and permanently. I dye my hair purple every winter because I get bad seasonal depression, and the bright colors make me feel happy. People may start going to therapy because they want a more positive outlook on life. Actors put on costumes, makeup, and even elaborate prosthetics to look like what they strive to imitate. People have their last name legally changed to reflect the relationships they have with the people they love. People have their badly damaged limbs amputated because they don't want intensive, painful restorative surgeries. Cisgender women have their breast size reduced because of back pain, or enlarged because they feel that makes them more feminine. And, most critically to the whole international discussion, transgender (and cisgender!) people use different pronouns than the ones they were expected to, change their names, go on hormones or hormone blockers, and get surgery that chances the shape of their body. All of these experiences are different because we're all different, and we change as a more natural part of life than this whole idea of "gender" ever was. those changes might be difficult. The reactions of the people we care about might hurt. But doesn't it matter if someone wants them, and if it changes an important part of the unique life they live for the better?
I don't think transgender liberation comes at the cost of freedom to live the life you want. Humans aren't a set of preset options for gender/pronouns/voice/body type, and I don't think anyone genuinely believes that. I think some people are scared of change- if a transgender woman faces misogyny on the basis of her gender expression, what does that mean for the cisgender woman who always viewed discrimination on the basis of sex?
If we broaden and increase these categories and allow people to choose how they express, why they express that way, and what they view themselves internally, that might be scary for some people. And that's okay. It really is. But no one is forcing your children, your friends, or you to act a certain way because of trans liberation. We want you to live your life on your terms, just as we wish people would calm down about the conspiracies they read on Facebook and let us live ours.
sorry for leaving an essay length reply on your comment, random internet stranger. I probably misspelled some things, could have worded others better, and I'm definitely missing some important stuff (aren't we all?). But, yeah. Just wanted to put that out there for your enjoyment, criticisms, and discussion, however you feel about it.
The reason doctors recommend trans affirming care is because it's been shown to be extremely effective. The mental health issues in the trans community are well known and in particular the suicide rate being 10x higher than the general population. Trans folk that go through the whole protocol - therapy, then puberty blockers, then HRT, then surgery (when they're adults) by contrast actually have better mental health than the general population.
It being safe and effective isn't something to brush aside when the treatment saves lives. Having a more tolerant society is also needed but this isn't an either/or imo
When they said "bodies can be more free to breathe, to move, to love" -- my mind immediately went to chest binders and I was like... that ain't breathing better or moving better.
@@im2randomghghthat is a lie. There are not long term studies of hormone replacement effects, or surgeries, etc, mainly because they are experimental stuff.
You can give your opinion, but do not lie, that's wrong
@@TheScaredLittleScholar omg this is the most detailed, logical and empathetic description I have seen about this topic. I really want to thank you for writing this in such a lucid way. In fact, it's probably the best youtube comment I've ever read :) I am cis-gendered but this helps me understand trans people and our society so much better and helps me be a better ally and a better person.
The concept of gender makes a lot more sesne when you completely decouple it from sex and instead use the word "personality".
Yep. They should leave sex alone. But they can't and won't.
@williammkydde whose they? Or are you just gesturing at an imaginary boogy man.
@@panopticon7883 You know, you're part of it. I don't have to explain obvious things.
@williammkydde it's not obvious, I'm genuinely curious, please explain.
@@panopticon7883 Do you call our governments "boogy man"? Are you a human?
"Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them" George Orwell
Great comment!!
@@jennifersmith4864 Shame it doesn't have a source. So it could've come straight from his ass. Also it is an appeal to mockery; just because you can make fun of something doesn't mean that thing is false.
@@mattmorehouse9685 That comment certainly didn't prove the trans activist's narrative to be correct. Do Better.
Gender (There are only 2 male/female... That's it) is established at conception and is observed at birth or before.
Way too many conflate gender with personality traits and temperament (There are a ton, and none are gender exclusive-- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), and gender roles (Which vary from culture to culture, society to society and country to country--BUT, they all refer to the roles of males and females in those various cultures, countries, and societies... Without exception), as though they're all synonymous and that's a massive error.
All women are born female, all men are born male and neither is a social construct, feeling, fetish nor a costume.
The main problem the trans activists have is that life is based in objective reality and the trans imagination just doesn't override the vast majority of people's capacity to discern the difference. Now, you know better
@zachman5150 why do most women have to have long hair? Is that sex or gender? Is that a role or part of an identity?
100%%%
..some..
Trans activists..have so much hatred for women ..it's not women's fault the way they were.born!! They try to obliterate females rights by insisting in competing in their sports..using their spaces...horrific...they even wish to go to females prison's to them them pregnant...talk about travesty and cowardice..
It's very hard to listen to Butler speak. It's as if she is intentionally using complex language to obscure the implication of what she's saying..
To my mind, the truth can always be stated in a simple and clear way.
or maybe you just dont understand... nothing wrong with that.
Interestingly, before this prominent movement came into the spotlight, I often used to hear discussions about the unique qualities of women and men within the context of relationships. Some men stated that they couldn't perceive certain women as women, and I have also encountered women expressing similar sentiments. While watching this, it reminded me of these previous conversations, and I realized that the traditional understanding of gender/sex can involve ambiguous sexualization.
Holy shit, I forgot that could happen
It does not stand to reason that ambiguity in personality types automatically results in the acceptance of the philosophies being espoused by this professor.
Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.”
Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes).
Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay:
In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation.
She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child.
And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful.
And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]
@@ab-lk9oi This lady, man, or whatever, is among the least intelligent people ever employed by a university.
Right because there’s masculine women and feminine men. But a feminine man is still a man and still will have some masculine traits and behaviors that will never change. It doesn’t matter what society does or if they were told they were a girl from day one and were treated like a girl their whole life. It’s happened. One of the gender theory founders (who was a sick pedophile child abuser) did a study where he did a sex change on an infant boy and his family lied to him and told him he was a girl. But he still had male traits. He was still miserable being confused thinking he was a girl when he was a boy the whole time. He ended up lol himself. Gender definitely isn’t a social construct. Have children and you’ll see it. With little babies and the way women and men act around children. This whole theory is a lie made up by a pedophile. Pedophiles are pushing it on children. It’s disgusting and wrong.
Sex is not an "assignment". There is not some cosmic administrator assigning babies a sex.
He/she is not cosmic he/she exists. If you are a father you probably met him/her in the adminstrative establishment where the "birth certificate" (or equivalent term) was registered. This day you assigned your child a sex, a first name, a date and so on.
BTW Trump agrees:
Ex-US President speech on "left-wing gender insanity" The January 31, 2023
"... establishing the only genders recognized by The United States Government are male and female and they are assigned at birth..."
Yes there is lol,
You have a penis or a uterus,
How do you think a baby human is made,
Oh I forgot to ask what type of stork delivers the baby,
Is there a bird in leather,
If that the case I'm sccaran
Remember David Reimer
I was born in 1971, so part of GenX. When I was in 8th grade, my female Social Studies teacher was lecturing on feminists. There were perhaps two paragraphs in our text book devoted to the topic. Her focus was on her perceived notion of their physical traits; more specifically, she commented extensively on how "ugly" they all were. This was my introduction to feminism! The takeaway seemed to be, "They're only feminists because they're angry that no men want them."
I agree with the notion of not being afraid to be challenged and not screaming or being violent with people that disagree with you.
Which is supposed to work both ways god damn it.
Amen to that. In recent months university students in filed petition against several professors because they proposed to reexamine sex change in minors. And some professionals were diciplined or even threatened to lose their licence because they questioned having biological males in women sports. The backlash against transgender is not due to their existence (which they state as a reason) but because of their aggresive activism and emotional blackmails. I heavily supported transgener cause until they started obstructing every debate related to children and women's rights in the context of transgend activism
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
But the people who "disagree" with queer people existing don't seem like they are afraid of violence. What about them?
that is the exactly reason that i am a dissident of LGBTQwhatsoever movement, nothing but tyranny.
This isn't a very well formed thought. But what gets to me about this way of thinking, beyond just gender, is that some people have figured out that the world isn't so absolute, boundaries are fluid and things are contextual. But they then make the mistake of thinking that means everything is arbitrary, that there is no tie to reality or even other words or social structures, anything can be anything.
Exactly! Except that if you slap them on their cheek, then they come to appreciate the workings of the laws of physics and mechanics. [Don't forget the "if".] So, not everything is arbitrary. Hunger is quite real. Death is another reality. Some boundaries are much harder to transgress. And somethings are indeed fluid, and many are not. There is much order to the world, while at the same time there are vast degrees of disorder, often understood as randomness. In a way, the generation of varieties of novel beings and forms is perhaps --- on average --- a good thing. And the development of our capacity to welcome and accept a vast array of varieties is worth pursuing. But all this must be done within the confines of reason and objective understanding of reality.
But everything is contextual! Language is contextual. And it is context within larger context and further within even much larger context, perhaps without an end. And then there is the matter of relevant contexts to the issues under the discussion. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!
No. I find that to be a very coherent comment, expressed clearly. You nailed it.
I'll go a step further. She assumes because gender roles are reinforced in heteronormative families, that gender roles are, therefore, constructed. She also assumes that because such families are consistent with patriarchal norms, these must be wrong or injurious, and thus, the individual's version must therefore be correct-or better by feminist standards.
This is a really nice example of how Feminism is built on an inversion of the naturalistic fallacy. Biology =Heteronormative family=nuclear family=patriarchy=automatically bad, therefore any answer we come up with to replace that must be better. Particularly, if that alternative marries well with Butler's book, or with the aims of feminism, generally.
This is an openly engineered false dichotomy. Meaning, her argument relies on portraying the situation as having 2 possible outcomes, where outcome number 1 is automatically wrong. Because outcome number 1 is ASSERTED to be wrong, we must accept what lies behind door number 2! This gender nonsense is what we find there and, Butler, goes on valorizing option 2 as "Freedom." She really leans into this to really sell the idea while simultaneously hiding her obvious false dichotomy.
On top of denying Biology aka nature, this strategy also does a nice job hiding the fact that women hold all the cards when it comes to shaping gender roles in heteronormative relationships-and always have. Men are "price takers" because almost universally, females, not just women, pick and choose. Across the animal kingdom.
This is something Feminism has been running from all along. Females, almost entirely, determine male and female roles. Sure a society may exert some influence; but only in so far as the key power group accepts this and chooses to play along. However, nature, provides us with a handy control group, in this regard, illustrating how females are almost entirely dominant in this role, despite Feminism's constant slew of sophistry and B.S to the contrary.
@@TheQuixoticRambler Very well said. I learned something today. Thanks!
You wrote:
"Meaning, her argument relies on portraying the situation as having 2 possible outcomes, where one is automatically wrong. Because outcome one is ASSERTED to be wrong, we must accept what lies behind door number 2!"
Zeroing in on either of two alternatives in human affairs --- a genuine dichotomy or not --- it's almost always possible to find that alternative to be problematic, unsavory or bad enough. Looking naively at the remaining alternative as the winner and thus concluding as the better is a recipe fraught with greater pain, suffering, failures and unhappiness on large scales. What is needed is a battery of OBJECTIVE standards of measurement that can be reliably applied to objectively determining the worth of each alternative unhindered by emotional judgments.
Elsewhere you wrote:
"Men are "price takers" because almost universally, females, not just women, pick and choose."
I find it difficult to agree with your adverb "almost universally". While in advanced technological and industrial societies your observation holds true, in much of the world females have limited freedoms. We need statistical evidence to see to what extent females "pick and choose".
@@fraiopatll633 Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. To clarify, when I say "females" I mean females from ALL species, with an emphasis on mammals and other categories similar to us. When I mean human females, I use the term, "Woman/Women." And, perhaps, I should also have clarified I meant women belonging to the group historically in question when Western Feminists are speaking i.e. Western women.
In general, I welcome your calls for greater reliance on claims with empirical backing. However, I believe the onus for same rests with the person or group, initially advancing novel claims. Unless their arguments can be diposed of by reason alone, as I have attempted to do above! Ok, and some reliance on some notion of common sense and an assumption of the existence shared truths-objective or otherwise.
May I add, I like the nuance and clarity you brought to the table in your earlier comment, above.
I agree with your description of reality and the difficulties of people who struggle to conform to " gender norms"; but your thinking seems to be quite binary in that the solution suggested is that " trans" people should migrate from pole to pole. "Man" and " woman" are ( largely) givens - but what it means to be either can be wide open. Given that fact, most people conform to general stereoypes through inclination and not coercion. Humans are on a " spectrum" with other mammals - it might be interesting to compare " performativity" and it's manifestations..
"We have to allow ourselves to be challenged and to accept our way of thinking to be revised" in critical theory means - YOU have to allow yourself to be challenged and YOU must then revise your way of thinking to be how you are being told to think, or else!
No, it means that we should all be open to being challenged and revise our thinking if necessary. If you're not open to any challenges then you are not thinking.
@@comfycomet3769 I agree what it is meant to mean, but I don't think Butler believe's it applies to themself. That's a problem. Critial Theory essentially shows you how to enact that one-sided approach to obtain your own means.
@@comfycomet3769Let's hope Judith gets the memo.
All I see when someone identifies themselves as XYZ and their entire outlook, social interaction, and emotional state is dictated by if others see them and treat them as XYZ, is someone who is insecure about being XYZ. It doesn’t matter what the label is; race, gender, sexual orientation, political party, etc. Everyone deserves basic human rights,(freedom of expression included), but you cannot control how others see you or treat you, it is a battle you will lose and a self imposed hell.
Spoken like a person who has never had problems with people refusing to acknowledge their preferred XYZ.
@@Giby86 you can think of me and call me whatever. No sleep lost.
should i then treat black in a certain way because they're black ? is that okay?
@@Giby86 Spoken like a person who doesn't know how to critically think about this situation holistically and instead uses a rhetorical fallacy as their argument. @AA53057 That's well said.
@@portraits_of_bliss let me try that then.. we haven’t had a dialogue for me to believe I was shutting down any of your opinions from a premise of my statement. You accused me of not knowing what it’s like for someone to deny my request for them to treat me a certain way. I definitely do, as do most people by some point. I spent all my 20s being insecure about my appearance with social anxiety. It stunted my growth as a person. I don’t know what it’s like to have gender dysphoria, but the scope of my original comment went beyond gender identity and was just my 2 cents of a truth I spent over a decade suffering through. If that can help someone with what they are going through then fantastic. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to respect a request that you make(how people refer to you), and in certain environments such as school or work, people adhering to that is essential and enforceable by the establishments we reside in. Said establishments shouldn’t hire or treat people based off labels but from character and competency in a functional meritocracy. We cannot control other people’s freedom of expression. If Bob wants to call Sally a lint licking cootie queen behind her back or to her face during a run in with each other at bingo night, he is free to do so. Discrimination is real, it is also human nature, and saying so, doesn’t justify the act. That is why we have HR and cultural shifts towards more tolerance, which is sorely needed in an internet connected, non homogeneous society. The clashes I see in the realm of gender is more of an argument of semantics and how that pertains to what is considered fair and safe for all parties. Besides trolling, I would be surprised if most people that disagree with you are doing so with malicious intent. Most people now days can identify discrimination and do not condone it.
Edit:
I thought you were the other person lol. I’ll keep this here though.
At this point gender is just a term to identify personality traits. And to be honest, I don’t need to know your “gender” to decipher your personality. Because people have tried so hard to detach gender from s3x, I just don’t care about anyone’s gender anymore - only their biological s3x.
she is making statements without explaning why what she is talking about is true
This is a thirteen minute video explaining basic concepts. She has written extensively on the subject if you want to dig further.
is this scientology?
@@mikesrandomvideospretty much
@@LaughingStock55 Your DNA literally organizes your physical body.
DNA dictates the production of objective biological differences between males and females. 100% of the population is either male or female, even intersex people. If they have a Y chromosome, they are heterogametic and male. If not, they are homogametic and female. But you knew that because you've actually educated yourself on these conditions, right?
Personality traits and temperament (Neither of which is gender exclusive -- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), aren't synonymous with gender or gender roles.
There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have.
Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realizing that their discomfort simply stems from not realizing that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define.
This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives).
Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognized as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into.
To believe we as individuals can have 100% control over our identity in society, what we are seen as by others, in interaction with, and in relation to, society/the world/physical existence is a fool's errand, it is a delusional understanding of reality and existence.
My main critique is her lens seems to be developed with an exaggerated sense of self importance. Elevating individual wants and desires to the pinnacle while seeing societal standards as oppressive. Because of the comfort of modern society, people who think like Butler seemed to forget that a lot of norms are formed out of need to survive not just in the moment, but for generations. Her radical disregard for the constraints of the natural world will indeed make history repeat itself by way of the fall brought about by pride and a radical sense of the importance of self. I do want a society where people are free to explore their identity, but I think that should be done on the fringes, not as the norm. We need normies to hold society together so that there is a stable place for people like Butler to explore herself. She promotes the normalization of fringe behavior at her own expense I think.
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken" - Oscar Wilde
Sadly i'm not sure how much longer humanity has on this planet... if we keep yelling at each other over this type of crap (instead of just letting people live their lives and also not trying to force people to be respectful) ... all we have left is our own self to worry about
So i will be ww2 german
Little Edit:,, Be the best Version of yourself.
I have read the section of her book that the professor, Amy Jemgochian whom I love from the UC Berkeley gave out in my class at the art institute. I never thought she is this young. I liked her writing and was helpful to read it.
I still don't want to be forced into boxes either way. I don't want to become non binary /agender to let people know i don't care about gender. I want people to see my sex and issues related to it, recognize them , and erase them while I remain who I am.
I agree, and when people identify themselves as non binary that's also fine. I think it opens up societal discussion and exploration of gender and gender roles
Fundamentally, the problems and arguments lie in the distinction between Sex and Gender. The vocabulary we use to define Male and female sex and gender is the same, and so there lies the confusion on both sides, even in the lgbt community itself. We should not deny the existence of Biological and Psychological differences, nor should we think that they are the same thing. I think in order for different sides to agree is to acknowledge the existence of Sex and Gender and not try to treat it as some religion that can be left to one's own beliefs.
I can almost agree with what u said, but the problem relies on how broad gender actually is. Gender is an identity and people identify as whatever the hell they want.
I don't have problem saying that a trans woman is a woman or that a trans man is a man, but I will never believe in what you identify if you're out of one of these 2 gender (Man and woman).
And that's where things starts to get messy. Gender Ideology believers like to say that people should treat them by their right pronouns, but a lot of them don't even have a gender to begin with/transitions gender every second. And if you refuse to call that weird guy as deer/deerself (? XD It exists, there is a Twitch user called Ferocious that identifies himself as a deer) because... well, you can't be gender deer, it doesn't exist (You're a human being, to begin with) these gender freaks will do everything they can to destroy your life.
That's actually the only real problem with all of this gender ideology thing that a 100% agree. Non binaries doesn't exist and forcing people to deny science to accept someone else's identity is the definition of dictatorship.
@@pedrovitor5324 the thing is, we have terms already available to describe them. A trans man is exactly what the term states as with trans woman. You don't need to change your beliefs about who should be called what. Once the politicization of this issue dies down we'll forget about each other's genitalia and get back to hating everything else about each other.
So you have your own theory about gender, just like Judith said. Cool!
@@pedrovitor5324 "these gender freaks will do everything they can to destroy your life" is all I need to know about you........ It's not your life that is being destroyed. You talk about dictatorship, yet your words are fascist.
Maybe take a closer look at yourself, and what's in your own heart.
Gender is a believe system. It’s what I and only I believe what suits me the best. It’s unfalsifiable. Recognizing that is very important in this debate. If we can live for thousands of years with religion, I don’t see any reason why can’t find a way to accept it in our society.
Titling this as ‘Berkley professor’ is really underestimating the influence of Judith Butler 😅
Literally! lol she has had such a big influence.
Yeah more like Queer and Gender Studies Pioneer or something
A very influential scientific denier.
@joaodecarvalho7012 I believe she is in fact a scientist, is she not? Like literally that's what studying gender from an academic perspective is about. But what do you think?
@@brianhunt4164 No, she does not do scientific research on sexuality, and she explicitly says that she is not interested in what science has to say about the subject. Her references are philosophers from decades ago, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Foucault.
She also politicizes her “theory”, turning it into on anti-establishment protest or something.
Anything she says regarding a person's sex is built on a house of cards because she says sex is "assigned at birth". No. It is observed, and then can be confirmed by chromosome analysis. "Assigned" suggest it is attached to someone like a name is. Just no. It's amazing such an irrational thinker has such a reputation.
Agreed
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Sex is not assigned, it is simply observed.
And psychoanalysis is just pseudoscience.
Nonsense
Bingo
True
@@Dimple_5 You can "be" whomever you want to be, but sex is assigned by reproductive organs, not feelings. Words don't define how you feel, just what you have. Stop making it more complicated than it needs to be. It's no different than race... Is a black person that fits better / feels more at home in a Hispanic culture or white culture no longer African American? No
I love philosophy. Enjoyed the exposure. There are always questions remaining. I will not get into arguments, since we won't be able to solve them in such a short time, but I totally agree that the congruence and clarification of the main concepts (especially of justice, freedom, rights and respect, for instance) are important and may be the beginning of impartial conversations.
This is anything but philosophy!
@@JaysonT1 what do you mean?
"Philosophy"? This is just ideology. Make no mistake.
@@mallorga1965indeed tis no philosophy to be found here
the ideology was upgraded to "cult" status somewhere between 2017 and 2020, it's now 2023 and the philosophers have finally arrived to let you know, this definitely isn't a philosophy
FYI women have wombs, the clue was in the name this whole time,
Man + Womb = Woman
Hm... At 5:28 there is a mention of a difference between "the sex you're assigned" and "the sex you become".
That's in stark contradiction to the "sex that is determined at birth" and "gender that can be decided by an individual".
If we're making a distinction between sex and gender it'd be nice to be consistent in saying "sex is physiologically defined and immutable" and "gender is a social construct" instead of immediately go to the "hm... but we can change sex into gender and decide that sex is also a social construct".
Consistency please...
All words are social constructs... All things that we can interact with are agreed upon beforehand...
@@imiguifurr That is true. What your comment doesn't contain is that words have a meaning and if that meaning drifts too fast and far away from its initial meaning, the word becomes useless and such rapid change of meaning (instead of coining a new word) is an indication of intentional manipulation and hijacking of the weight of implied meaning for manipulative purposes of changing perception faster.
@@DerDoMeN nothing can stop or manipulate the rate at which language develops... "Manipulation" is only a projected form of control... You're giving the external world the power to control your perception instead of perceiving objectively
@@imiguifurr Objective perception is non existent...
What you perceive is always clouded by feelings and you probably know the paraphrasing of "people have a short memory span but strong feelings so to pull them in a certain direction you must associate a short or a single word slogan that represents all the strong feelings".
So... Good luck with your objectivity there.
@@DerDoMeN Perception is not not objective because it's clouded by feelings...
Perception isn't objective because it's perception. All perception is subjective.
I was born a boy, but I vividly remember in my mind that I was a girl and behaved like one. My parents always tried to teach me how to become a boy, with a lot of RESPECT AND LOVE, without any pressure or shame. Over time, my mind adjusted to my body and I began to feel like a boy. If I had extremely progressive parents, they would have reinforced my gender dysphoria, I would have gone through all the pain of feeling I was born in the wrong body, transitioning with surgery, etc. If I had extremely conservative parents, I would have hated them, or I could have killed myself, or they would never see me again. My parents were neither PROGRESSIVE NOR CONSERVATIVE, they just loved me. You can't go to the other extreme, like what the documentary "raised without gender" shows: children who are confused, lost, with an identity crisis, suicidal... thinking they were born in the wrong body. Children are immature and trying to discover who they are, they need a guidance. If later they are really diagnosed as "born in the wrong body", they deserve all respect and support, but guidance was given. If you treat kids with love, affection and respect, it's more difficult to get things wrong.
Hello! It's a blessing to hear you had loving parents. What do you think of adults (20s up to 80s even 90s) who come out as transgender and choose to transition, even late in life?
@@johannpaoloclarchaves2751 As I said: these people deserve all respect and support. I defend the rights of transgender people, I also defend that children must have some guidance not to feel they were born in the wrong body. I thank the universe that my parents did that, and I wasn't raised by some extremist progressive or conservative freaks who would have abused me psychologically. I think both extremes border child abuse. Watch the documentary I mentioned (made by a progressive documentary maker, by the way): 5-year-olds will tell you one day that they are boys, the other day they feel like girls... and the next day they want to be cats. That's what it is like to be children. You cannot take the word of 5-year-olds seriously and transition them into cats because they tell you they feel like cats. But that's what genderless education is doing to kids in Sweden: they never tell boys or girls that they are boys or girls, they are completely free to decide: that's increasing the rates of gender dysphoria, depression and suicide rates in kids. It's painful to watch children suffering without knowing how to decide who they are. So I think the LGBT movement needs a bit more balance in this issue. It's too early to do these experiments with kids.
Well said
I was told that I am a girl. Didn't help at all. Now I have full version of identity crisis at 23 y/o. Should I say to my parents they didn't love me enough just because I don't feel like being binary is the answer to who I am? And no, it's not attention seeking. I don't plan to come out in real life. Its just who I am. Someone who is internally open to possibility, that there is more than being female or male. That people are more than sex.
@@adnuserg Of course people are more than sex. Don’t be distressed about the identity crisis, it sounds like you have a rich and thoughtful inner world and it might just be a creative superpower.
The term gender was created to be used interchangeably w sex since the word sex has two different meanings. It's to help people communicate more clearly which is what language is for but it can also be used as a weapon to vilify people, control how they think, or just confuse the shit out of them. My take is that people conflate gender with gender expression or personality. This theory seems to be built on stereotypes, you're saying if someone is gender nonconforming they aren't actually that gender. I also disagree w treating someone differently based on skin color, sex or any other immutable characteristics
It's come out that pervert doctors and degenerative actors with a really sick fetish are mainly responsible followed by a wave of online pedophiles whispering in their ears of neglected youth,
More and more people are coming out.
Happy Straight Modesty Month by the way.
Exactly! Bravo. One sane and intelligent comment on this very unfortunate list of naive and “philosophy wise” ignorant comments.
@@luizalouyoga happy 11 months of straight modesty to you too fellow internet person.
@@PostalFerretWithRum Cheers, mate 🍻
Let's also not forget that if "gender is a social construct" then it is society that says what gender you are. You don't get to pick one yourself.
Perhaps the gender issue is one that perfectly provides the latest justification to disagree. An unanswerable question, an unsolvable problem, an unreachable goal, just enough out of reach that it guarantees one of infinite social distractions from what really can't be faced in our own private lives.
Why would someone dismantle strict definitions only to subscribe to another strict definition? I’m inclined to think that they believe greater happiness would be gained in the defection along with greater ease in one way or another. It’s a risky gamble to venture into the unknown and make a permanent choice to solve a problem that may be temporary. One may find equal or less ease. Expansion of the definition or creation of a new term altogether seems the more beneficial strategy.
You just spoke straight facts. This is what happens when you remove God from the equation @@flachrattenmann
If the biological differences do not determine who we are why we need another concept or a label to determine it?
if the gender is such a complex structure where every part of human life has an influence on it - why can't it just be a personality?
I think it has something to do with self actualization, trying to make something of yourself with just your words and your perception of yourself. I believe people can be whoever they want, love whoever they want, express themselves however they want, but this concept exists to me just as an attempt to fill a void in the person's mind, attempt to make something of themselves when there is not much more on the inside.
The answer is that "gender" is needed in order to disorganise society, dissolve societal norms, kneecap our way of living. To destroy.
You are very close, These moronic leftists are post modern, they are post objective truth, they believe only in completing narratives, and power dynamic, they want to gain power by doing nothing but weaponizing language, they produce nothing, nothing of any use to anyone.
I wouldn't be so harsh about the presumed conclusion but I agree on the premise of it. I'm all for gender fluidity, it is part of some people identity and it's their business, but why the need to make gender fluid people fit neatly in some new little boxes all of sudden? Why can't we just agree that gender happens on a spectrum and let people be? I find all the new terminology, new definitions and new gender inclusive language much more restrictive and predeterminant than not having it. I find there was more freedom even just a decade ago where people didn't have to overthink so much their gender identity and could just be how they wanted and/or able to change their mind as they went. This obsession of labelling every single little difference might just be counterproductive in my humble opinion. And I won't even go on about asking developing teens to do so and define their particular hue of gender when they haven't even worked out yet who they are as a person outside gender.
they do
problem is humanity uses toxic things
breaking natural processes
creating aberrations and problems never existing before
Same. Yes! So well said. I've asked, "Can I just say 'queer' instead of the ever-growing alphabet?" Some interpreted my question as hostile and insincere. But my first crush in high school was lesbian, a family member is gay, my favorite boss was gay...I really don't care! I just don't understand the obsession with divisions and public pronouncements of sexual behaviors and, for some, fluid gender identity needing to be subdivided and publicly proclaimed. You should be required reading. Spot on.@@tatianacarretero686
I came here after reading the first chapter of her book for a graduate class, I didn’t understand a word but now it makes way more sense 👍🏽👍🏽
It doesn’t make any sense… she is completely wrong in several aspects
It makes very much sense if you believe everything is a social construct, the sole thing motivating people is power and the world can best be understood as a battle between groups (men vs woman, cis va trans, majority vs minority).
The only problem is that those axioms are not true and even more are terribly (!) problematic, vicious and divisive (see current culture war in the west).
If you think things through then the goal is the deconstruction (or rather destruction) or all culture in the west (and eventually in other cultures).
@@chrisschill9222 exactly, the problem is all their axioms are wrong, making it all faulty reasoning… for example an axiom would be “trans women are women” this is their social construct, they start from this already absurd conclusion, and work backwards modifying language in an attempt to make sense of such conclusion.
It’s an unethical, unscientific, illogical approach… oh but of course since logic is a western creation by white men, this is therefore evil because logic is oppressive.
This gotta be the most stupid ideology that people has ever supported… isommany problems in the world and we need to lose time explaining reality to this cultist idiots.
It doesn't make sense bc it is complete nonsense. There are only 2 sexes and billions of really special personalities and fashion choices.
Now you know it’s ideological nonsense?
If sex is assigned, who does that assigning? Is it possible to assign a sex that is different from the observed sex? If so, under what circumstances?
If not, there is no need for it to be "assigned", it is just observed.
There ARE examples of babies born with both sex traits being assigned a sex and parents told to raise them a certain way
God or nature
@@runtoth3abyss That's true. But this is not the way the cliche "sex assigned at birth" is typically used. It's universal. I get the distinct impression the phrase is intended to portray sex as arbitrary rather than a biological reality.
My understanding is they are conflating the legal aspect, to which you are assigned a sex at birth, on the fancy government paper with the biological category
Either they are doing this on purpose or they are just as dumb as I feared
Although Butler comes as very eloquent and convincing, my biggest issue with her and the social constructivists remains, since their take is to both separate biology from sociology, and to consider the individual as the absolute ultimate judge of their own reality. Our identity is a mixture of what our body tells us and what society tells us, and what the individual decides to appropriate for themself it's always going to be in relationship with those other two factors, so the so called "self determination" is a mirage.
The key point here is that ALL gender is constructed from aspects of the world that have contributed to its inception. When you look at it from an anthropological standpoint, humans have been creating labels for themselves for eons and those labels all serve a purpose. If a new sect of people feel as though this (not new, but fairly unheard of and ostracized) group called “transexuals” is what describes what they’re psychologically going through, then biological steps can be to taken to further affect the social reality of themselves. Most of us do NOT think twice about the decisions we make to be cis-men or women. And that’s great, but if a (GROUP) of people even considers questioning their social reality, they should be able to do with their body as they please.
This almost has nothing to do with biology once you break past the obvious physical and sexual dichotomy-nothing in biology says anything about what men/women can dress as, who they should have sex with, or what role they have in society
We are at a point where people who were born without limbs can run, thanks to technology. How much did the biological blueprint matter for that? And why should we ask biology what our destiny is? Aren't rape, war, and murder biological?
Moreover, that people give biological markers such importance in dealing with things that have zero to do with gonads is nothing but a social preference. Unless I'm going to a doctor or going to get some nookie, nobody needs to know if I'm a male or a female. Yet people are literally making up laws from fears and whines regarding this in public spaces.
So no, I don't buy anything about the so-called "biological" view. We use science to correct Jesus's mistakes on a daily basis.
@@atlaslife3800 Answering to your 1st question, the biological blueprint helped to nudge scientists into creating artificial limbs and also the person into using it. No one wants to use prosthetics if they don't need. They don't also create them if crippled people stop existing. "Destiny " doesn't exist, however propensity does. If I have hunger, I'm not "destined" to eat, but trying to fight against this natural drive takes a toll on your energy. It's easier to just give in and eat, if needed. We can overcome biology, but that takes a toll on your energy, thing that isn't infinite. Biological markers are important. See the problem in bathrooms: if you keep saying "I identify myself as a woman" if you are a biological ripped man, you will be opening a dangerous path for rapists to do that as well and prey upon innocent woman going to the bathroom. That's not all. If we ignore biological markers, women's sports will become "transgender sports" because all biological man declaring themselves as woman will get the top spot, since they biologically have more muscle mass. This makes "equality" go out of the window.
Lastly, stop talking about jesus' mistakes. I am agnostic, but you talking about a so called "religious figure" in this way will bring only animosity and altercations to this philosophical discussion. Let's be civilized and not talk about religion where it does not belong.
Sounds like you slept through half the class.
@@atlaslife3800 Why? Simply because no male ever has to go through the fear of getting pregnant. Quite simple, isn't it? Giving birth and/or breast feeding as well as considering the qualities of a father or mother when chosing partners are what makes our sexual realities while this bullshit amplified by the university of Berkeley doesn't.
Does anyone else find that an epic soundtrack playing at the same volume as someone speaking not only makes it harder to pay attention to what she's actually saying but also maybe changes the message of the video a little bit? It's like the speaker is being put up on a pedestal in a god-like fashion, as if to motivate an army to fight. I can only speculate but couldn't this amplify the degree to which people hear her words as emotionally charged and kind of motivate them to dig in their heels whether they agree or not?
I'll go one better: I wish they took out all the b-roll protest footage too. I know we have to appeal to dwindling attention spans, but I wish they could have just put the camera on her and left it there. Everything else feels emotionally manipulative.
Very interesting observations! I agree, it all feels very emotional manipulative.
sadly, yes :/
Great observation! Thanks!
Goebbels would have loved this era we are in. All this potential to propaganda! I Bet we would see a lot of Hitler's discourses with environmental epic music.
Goebbels believed that music could create a public emotional and spiritual experience competitive with religion. Concert halls with their darkened auditoriums and formal settings exposed the audience to an experience similar of going to church. The music of Wagner was the centerpiece of the new "Aryan" spirituality, aiming to attain the same "impact generated by traditional Christian religious ecstasy and devotion".
Not to say she is anything like Hitler! Of course I don't belive that.
@mathiasrennochaves3533 I can certainly see the value of invoking historical context here. I'm told history does tend to repeat itself if we don't understand and remember it. I can even appreciate a little bit that you'd want to muse about hypothetical scenarios of what Nazis would be doing today. We are certainly living in a world where individual actors and organizations with significant resources are trying to influence what we think and feel. I wonder though - genuinely - if maybe you could clarify and elaborate on what you think about this video - maybe even how you feel when you watch it or listen to it? I find it hard to tell if your final comments are authentic or tongue-in-cheek.
What Butler is describing here, in this video, is personality. Why would I use new word for old things? Just to refresh? Just to lost what has been gained in personality studies and experience?
And Butler's body language around some parts of the video (those about definitions) seems somehow wrong to me, I believe I've never seen a human talking heart-spoken-truth with this kind of body language. So these 2 points made my perception of the video very critical and full of doubts.
Judith: You are distiguished. "What it means to be a MAN or what it means to be a woman ...is an open ended question." Your thinking has been molded in a social construct and you are tragically severed from the human experience. I wish you all the best in you open-ended reality.
Sex is not assigned to infants at birth, it is determined at fertilization.
Should say gender assigned at birth, not sex. Doctors assign the baby a gender based on their visible sex characteristics. That’s why you see the abbreviation AGAB and not ASAB.
@@emmanarotzky6565Doctors don't assign a gender. They observe a sex.
Gender is a completely useless concept that we could simply forget about entirely. There's biological sex, and individual personalities. That's it. No reason to put people with certain traits into buckets we call Gender.
biology 101
@@emmanarotzky6565 They record what the sex/gender of the baby is. That's all. No different than recording how many fingers the baby has. That isn't assigned, it is observed and recorded. For many kids, this is observed and recorded via ultrasound. I don't know where this whole "assignment" term is coming from. It is nonsensical. Many babies are born without a doctor, oh, shoot, where they not assigned? Silly word games.
I am a lefty woman (xx) that grew up in the 70's. It was a fabulous time to be a girl, when gender stereotypes were being challenged, and being a girl just meant that you would grow up to be a woman one day. A girl could climb trees, race hot wheels, play ball etc. and still be a girl. What I see now is a disastrous reversal of this thinking, and instead an extreme clinging to gender stereotypes, where that kind of girl would now be questioned as to whether she was really a boy. It seems we are now prioritizing harmful medical interventions with irreversible consequences (sterilizing and inoculating them from the pleasures of sex, for life) to solidify a gender stereotype in these kids. When instead we should have continued to tear down the barriers of gender stereotypes so that society would more and more accept that boys can also like pink and tutu's and want to paint their nails. That is true acceptance of a person. But when you tell that boy that because of his preferences he needs to be castrated and be pumped with harmful amounts of wrong sex hormones that will cause all sorts of medical nightmares one day, well, that is not acceptance in my world. That is just wrong. Sex is real and "gender" just needs to burn to the ground. What we need is a wider acceptance of a variety of personality expression within the real categories of male and female. The pendulum has swung too far. The world is slowly waking up to the harms. Hopefully it is not too late to right this ship and we can take care of all the humans in a more humanistic and compassionate way. (P.S. Sex is not "assigned" at birth. It is observed for the VAST majority).
Severe boomer brain
*Well said* ! In the '70s when I was figuring out how to describe/label my sexuality and gender, most of the lesbians I met were "soft butches". We just didn't fit into the conventional "feminine" stereotypes and didn't want to. After a brief period of really identifying with campy, witty, gender-defying gay men, I decided that as uncomfortable and even alienated as I sometimes felt from girls/women at that time, I didn't want to be a man or embrace what we now call "toxic masculinity" that pervades that world.
I decided that, as you said, it was gender stereotypes/norms/straitjackets that were the problem, not me or what sex I'd been born as. I figured out that if I am female and I have interests both "masculine" and "feminine", prefer masculine clothing or at least not revealing, frou-frou clothes, and desire sex and romance with other women, that makes me a gender-nonconforming woman (not a man or anything else). So I, internally, thought of myself as "gender non-conforming" (decades before that was a "thing") and "androgynous". I didn't feel the need to announce it; it wasn't especially relevant in most situations, especially with the non-queer public.
As far as teens who are uncomfortable with their body, most girls weren't completely happy with their bodies, many grown women aren't either. And many men (even some gay men) contribute to that. Do we "affirm" a flat-chested girl's desire for breast implants or accept someone's claim that she might feel suicidal if she doesn't get them? Or do we get her some psych help and tell her she can do what she wants with her body _if_ she still feels that way when she is an adult? The whole "you're so brave" and "special" and "need affirming or else they might become suicidal" has become a sick and harmful fad. Many kids are claiming to be "queer" these days as it's become cool and edgy and special and you get to be in a club that welcomes you. But just being gay isn't cool enough anymore, now the coolest folks are "non-binary" or trans. So any disconnect with your expected gender norms is perceived as evidence of being NB or trans.
Funny how we're back to men (biological males) demanding access to women-only spaces, re-defining us as "cis-women", and themselves as "trans- _women_ ", and "performing" (I am using that pejoratively) traditional femininity and claiming it as their own. Did African-Americans (or anyone else) accept Rachel Dolezal's claim that she was black even though she'd been born white? So why should actual (biological) women accept (and even support) the *appropriation* of our sex by biological men?! Wear a skirt, lipstick, learn to crochet, whatever...be a feminine man. Just don't force cognitive dissonance on people who can see that you're male at twenty paces, demanding they call you "she", and parodying in falsetto the way you think women speak. To adapt a line from a lesbian-interest film, "I'm sorry you don't like your sex (gender), but you can't have mine."
@@jinglecat3678 whoa, great argument 🙄 (that's a Gen Z eye roll for you). And your argument is wrong. Gen X all the way, baby!!!
@@jinglecat3678 I am so offended that you mis-gen'd me!! Violent speech!! And Judith Butler is a Boomer, therefore has boomer brain, yes??
Andrea, I agree with you that it would be tolerance that would be the best remedy. Simply accept people how they are, whatever that is,
As for all other aspects of living, as long as it not exploitative against you or others.
So, when no one cares whether a man has boobs or is flat, or a woman is flat-chested, life would be way easier.
Trouble is we are USED to this binary system, either this OR that, that it comprises 90+% of (wo)mankind, that human nature is to categorize ANYthing to reduce the amount of data. Whatever we see, we scan the image, categorize into dangerous/harmless, ir/relevant, and carve out what is important and concentrate on that.
When you cannot do that, when all information has the same relevance, you get an autist. They are overwhelmed by the amount of info, and to protect themselves, encapsulate themselves.
We categorize in male and female. But there we accept that there is an enormous range for both sexes.
No one cares when men wear a skirt - when it is chequered and you are a Scotsman.
No one cares when Annie Lennox wears a business suit and has short orange hair.
We even accept some overlap between the looks of the two groups - as long as the people still declare themselves definitely to one side.
Just saw yesterday that "Some Like It Hot" from 1958 could have been banned because Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis were cross-dressing - a no-go at that time.
Even Ronald Reagan was cross-dressing in one of his movies. That is OK today.
Transvestites can be CIS-gender (fe)males that just have fun breaking out of their normal identity.
Question is on this enormous spectrum, what are the limits? Who defines them?
NONE of the Anti-Trans community bothers to define that (as it is undefinable), does not matter, as long as they can say
"But there ARE some that I hate, and their plan is to DESTROY the society, together with those evil insane pedophiles that defend them"
90% of the discussion is NOT about people, is NOT about coming to a solution, it is exclusively to incite outrage, primarily based on religious motives.
Repeat, would we all be more tolerant about how individuals are, all would be infinitely easier.
But that also means that we have to be more open regarding sexuality, including CIS sexuality. And that is tough.
Now comes my dissent with you:
You seem to be totally exasperated about cutting body parts off from little kids.
My question: Have you checked about the numbers, how often that actually occurs?
For minors TODAY you have the person, the parents, the surgeon, a social worker, a psychologist that all convene to set any individual decision on a fact-based, case-specific solution. I suppose larger actions are expensive and are NOT covered by the health insurance. So parents have to invest a lot of money. Will they really do that based on their mood on that day? The anti-Trans group always makes it appear that a mom can wake up one day and say "Well, I think I would rather have a girl than a boy", goes to the next doctor and at the end of the day the 6-year old is remodelled as girl.
When it would be about the topic itself, people would discuss about how to control this decision, how all aspects shall be reliably covered.
And NOT about a DENIAL that Transgender exists that there is NOTHING except "real males" and "real females"
(and anything else is an abomination of the Lord and has to be purged from earth)
As far as I can see, when something surgically is done, it is in the overwhelming majority "upper body" jobs, lower body is an extreme exception in teenager-age. How makes it sense before you become sexually active?
(again, religion: OMGod (lol), my child CANNOT be so, NOTHING is to happen before the two are married, anything before that sends my poor kid to Hell)
It is not that easy to get concrete numbers, you must wriggle around with search terms.
When you can find out that doctors and surgeons manipulate people to agree to surgery etc. because they want to make money - fine them to hell.
ANYthing where people get manipulated is to be vehemently called out. Not as wholesale judgement, but for the concrete case(s).
The whole situation is eerily similar to the "pro-life/pro choice" debate: superficial, dogmatic, undifferentiated, massively religiously loaded.
Pro lifers including Trump claim that pro-choicers want to have "abortion after birth".
Demand a law that gives a simple, wholesale regulation. ZERO exceptions. Any violation is murder.
All miscarriages will then be investigated for murder. 10% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage.
When they have 15 weeks, they switch to demand 6 weeks, then to zero weeks. A fertilized egg is a human and must be preserved at any cost.
Viable or not, does not matter. This is about principles, not about reality.
Any kind of contraception that prevents implanting of a fertilized egg is murder. We have principles.
So in principle, all sex that is not meant for procreation is to be forbidden. The Lord demands that.
That in their Bible it is written that when a husband suspects his wife cheated on him, she is given a poison, and when she miscarries, she has been unfaithful. God judges on that child.
The Republicans and the right wing including QAnon are providing DOZENs of outrage topics to keep their base agitated and switch freely between them.
Very convenient, that unites your base, glosses over the vast differences within it, and prevents them from thinking about what is it that the GOP has in mind that is beneficial for me? And might find nothing,
if anything, it is to protect Trump and themselves,
shift money to their donors and themselves, grant projects and subventions to their donors and themselves,
and cut taxes for their donors and themselves,
So what are working, realizable remedies for the issue, that are able to regard the specifics of each individual case?
I thought this was going to be more so an interpretation of the man and woman and not an advert for the "community".
Mind is just an extension of your body. You cannot separate mind from body.
I hope this answers this complex subject
0:25: Everyone has a theory of gender based on assumptions about what gender is or should be.
1:31: Gender is an open-ended question and not determined solely by biological differences.
2:03: Sex is assigned at birth and has importance in medical and legal contexts, while gender is influenced by cultural norms, family, and personal desires.
4:32: Gender is not determined by birth or societal norms, but rather is a performance that can be crafted and remade.
4:50: Gender theory existed before 'Gender Trouble' and was influenced by philosophers like Simone de Beauvoir.
6:18: Anthropology and psychoanalysis played a role in understanding gender as a constructed and reproduced concept.
9:09: Learning and adjusting our language and habits is necessary to support marginalized communities.
10:08: Being open to challenging our ways of thinking is crucial for creating a more inclusive society.
11:32: The struggle for freedom and self-definition is essential in the face of societal constraints.
Recap by Tammy AI
Lol
Thanks for saving my time! amazing summary tool!
Sex is not "assigned", only registered...
I hope Judith Butler and her followers open their minds to new ways of thinking instead of regurgitating the same old patriarchal shit, putting a new dress on it and calling it 'progress'.
@@Mel-wn9gb care to ellaborate?
It's interesting to note that she doesn't seem to acknowledge any potential drawbacks or obstacles that could arise from her theory
Enlighten us! Name the 1st 3 drawbacks that come to your mind!
@@ruzica1974 the enablement of those in power and control to exploit the desires of the masses to escape from solving their actual everyday issues and instead indulge in the pretense of joining a "noble cause" and thereby dividing society further to convenience their votemongering
@@ruzica1974 the increasing occurrences of trigger responses by those who see themselves as oppressed, the increasing ease at which they get triggered, the increasing lack of restraint when unleashing their emotions, etc.
there are right ways to do right things. there are also wrong ways to do right things.
just as plundering shops does not serve to push for racial equality, neither do these drawbacks serve gender equality or gender-whatever-you-want
Name few. Please. This can be valuable discussion. And I am not saying this in a sarcastic way. I do believe in having these discussions.
@@juzam6 'Seeing themselves as oppressed,' 'lack of restraint when unleashing their emotions.' Hmmm, are your rights under attack as trans peoples' are today? Are you told that you can't have sex without the potential life changing possibility that that one day could lead to a totally unplanned and unwanted future? Do you not see that your way is not the way for others? If you were facing your rights being removed, you would justifiably consider yourself oppressed. I wouldn't complain about you being down right pissed off about it either.
I never dismissed the idea when I first heard of gender theory, just like I didn't automatically dismissed veganism but the moment I heard words like "bigot" "genocide" and my favourite "fascist" by their advocates, I immediately turned against them, I will not be turned a cultist...
Same with me, i have zero idea what the ‘alt-right’ is but i already feel like i like them and support them just because people call them facist or nazi
"please don't use fitting words to describe descrimination it hurts my feelies 😢😢😢"
@@machrider3223oh I'm a mutant, down winders reproduces asexually,
It's a form of mitosis we don't have sex we split apart perfect clones,
Fizzion radiation has its perks you know
@@demonicademonica8323 use less drugs.
@@machrider3223 for real dude 💯 Tell people to stop drugs,
No joke I work in a hospital,
It makes my day at taxes to waste my time baby sitting some homeless people detoxing in a hospital,