Judith is phenomenal. There is no other way to put it. I am a PhD from Berkeley and a prof at McGill U. The last time I met her she took the time to listen. That's what Judith does. She listens to everyone. Do the same.
She certainly doesn't seem able to listen to and comprehend what anyone gender critical is saying... (the amount of strawmanning she deflects with is absurd)
She is amazing. I love how she gently says she's moved on to new thought projects and why without using divisive language. If I could communicate as thoughtfully and kindly as she does...if we all could.
@NYCBigBull As the intersex dad of a trans woman , I may assure thr division was here way long before Judith Butler's work. No human being has such amount of power to be '' The'' Cause.
@metaldemort libs always take the "well its on both sides " when losing. No, its just the left. They use vulnerable monorities as pawns to gain political power . They create a suffering minority and a plea for compassion, to trick good people into voting for them. They are the biblical wolf in sheeps clotbing.. The far left :, progressives and queer marxists , and Judith Butler, made up a new religion , a cult of the "gendered soul "and convinced kids they were "trans" putting them at serious medical risk , frightening us all with false threats of sui***ide They also used the new college aged "nonbinary" mentaly ill straight women to co-opt real trans and gay people's identity and legitimacy to push a devisive gender ideology, created by Judith Butler, with the plan to abolish the sex binary , parental rights , thus destabilize the nuclear family in order to destroy capitalism, because the nuclear family is " the reproductive means of capitalism" . These Queer Marxists and Socialist's are using vulnerable people in their revolution to gain power inside our institutions, and schools, open the nations borders to anyone give them welfare and the right to vote,, They want to bolish freedom of speech, remove the electoral college, take away guns and end private property ownership ..All to put rich leftists in permanent power of a one party government, so they can end capitalism and usher in a socialist utopian state. No, this kind of devilishness, this kind of organized divisiveness, and cruelty to vulnerable minorities is not happening on botb sides, and No, its been happening for years,,no never tbis powerful , never this demonic before.
a philosopher who puts much more emphasis on the question than the answer. not better or worse for it, but you can tell it annoys a lot of people that aren’t familiar with the approach truthfully, there are times where the aim is more important than the caliber
Indeed. 💯 Alas, this is endemic midst an audience unfamiliar with post-Kantian so-called ‘Continental’ philosophy-and they are of course not to be blamed for that, but who are therefore (even as they are unaware of being) caught in the paradigm of the reigning scientistic ‘logic’ where meaning and knowledge are ‘always’ discursively attainable, contextually transcendent, and akin to mathematics. A few clever types will claim that Butler’s style is all post-modern mumbo jumbo, empty of content. For one thing, this is a deeply ignorant claim, historically speaking, when in fact the limitations of the scientistic approach to the world and its conception of language were already being heavily questioned in the 1790s by figures such as Herder, Hamann, Humboldt, and by many other thinkers since. Her so-called opaque style, in its very approach, solicits us to question our deeply ingrained prejudices about the attainment of meaning, knowledge, and values.
@@EyeByBrian Yep. A bunch of mumbo jumbo. Just the fact of all this "gender bender" garbage being put onto children is an abuse in my book. It's horrid.
@@EyeByBrian is it not possible that complexity science might be capable of bridging the gap that's previously existed between nominalist, antihumanist philosophies distrustful of the linear determinations of classical mechanics and positivism?
@@nickb863 What do you mean when you say ''complexity science''? Is that some sort of integrated form of social science with actual, (at this stage of our human development) measurable science? Give examples of ''nominalist, antihumanist philosophies ''! What are ''linear determinations of classical mechanics and positivism'' , are you referring to physics or Marxist, postmodern, post structuralist dogma?
continental here. to your point: questions themselves are philosophical problems in much of the tradition. also, Butler was influenced by Derrida who also approaches philosophical conversations like this. you see this especially when Butler says "I don't have one. I'm not useful in that way." gold. try to unpack that..
Man you really get the best guests and are clearly curious to learn about subjects you might not be traditionally familiar with. I always appreciate your openness and fluidity in conversations. Thanks again for all your work!
It used to be considered the people’s court when black men and black sympathizers were strung up, lynched, tarred, or mutilated by hoards in the name of ‘justice’ (usually based on false accusations) …I think it’s objective unless you humanize all, if not then humanity is subject to objectivity
The trans hate of women is intense, and I really wish they would just get their jack boots off the necks of women and tell males to stay the F out of female only spaces and services. I am just tired of the the hateful agenda, and the trans terrorists.
@@geinikan1kan you are giving too much credit to an academicist who is so drowned in Liberal ideology that she cannot see that this same ideology has reached its theorical limits. And as a Marxist, she is simply holding a VERY poor argument for the questions at hand because she cannot accept the fact that it was the obssession to identitarian politics that led to the loss of the Left in the elections.
I notice that many of the comments that express dislike for Butler and their theories do not seem to be able to point to any actual concrete reasoning as to why they dislike their theories or answers. I would be curious to see what someone had to say that has some weight in the critique, rather than just another opinion. I notice that Butler is able to give logos, or reasoning for their logical deductions. However, many of the critics in these comments fail to do so.
No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity. Explain what specific standards “trans” people are measuring themselves against to determine that there is a "mismatch" - THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense they create an unnecessary distorted framework which needlessly causes distress. How are men or women "supposed” to think or feel, want to dress like or act? You must be able to provide specific standards for each sex for what you are contending to make any sense whatsoever. If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman, then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel? Female rights and protections are sex-based. Why should males be allowed to "identify" into spaces and activities exclusively reserved for the opposite sex?
@@ambientjohnnyYour answer clearly shows that you haven't read Butler. They do not decorrelate sex and gender, and were actually harshly criticised by some feminists who do. To Butler, the notion of "biological sex" is as much of a construct as the "social gender". Gender trouble advocates for fluidity and subversive acts of "performance" which question the binary, not medical transition. However, medical transitions are healthcare, and you can't blame individuals for adhering, in spite of themselves to gender sterotypes. The "born in the wrong body" discourse is a convenient way to explain what many trans people feel, it doesn't imply a total disconnection between the gendered soul and the sexuated body. There definitely are some ethical problems that come with medical transitions, and they probably should be adressed more clearly, but it doesn't require acting like sex is not a construct. Acknowledging it is a step towards more fluidity, which is the key to people feeling safe and confortable with their body without surgery. Surgery at this point, is a matter of survival for some non gender-conforming people who are just trying to "pass", because not passing means risking your life...
Butler performed a deconstruction of gender, norms, and values at a philosophical level while obfuscating class relations and antagonisms at the level of politics and experiential life. Butler was part of the academic disparaging of left economic populism and, by intention or not, supported the liberal wing of the democratic party over and against the class politics with bernie, and thus contributed to the rise and persistence of trump. Butler should not be let off the hook for this. If you want a serious response to a particular work, I could do that too. I have many, especially in Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly.
@@robinsonerhardt Oh Robinson… I already lost respect for you when you expressed sympathies for Norman Finkelstein. I really wonder how somebody who is familiar with logic can take Judith Butler seriously. Literally every serious philosopher thinks she‘s a complete bullsh!tter. She’s the total opposite of a clear writer.
@@robinsonerhardt There are literally philosophy professors (e.g. Sokal, Bricmont, Hübl) who gave lectures on „bullshit“ and used Judith Butler as an example. She’s well known for her obscurantism and pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
@@ebflegg that amateur boxer in the Olympics is just a tomboy woman, she is not transsexuel or bipolar. and she lost so many times to other amateur women boxers. so please don't take it as a tranny competing against women.
Half the people in the comments don't even know what Butler is talking about and advocates for (and don't even try to understand, nor listen), and the other half came here just to hate on them because they saw them in the thumbnail, while not actually seeing the video. It's ridiculous, and further proves the point of their new book "Who's afraid of gender" - people don't even know what Butler's arguments are, and they don't even want to know. Anything that could potentially destroy their little world that is filled with their little social boxes, is for them not even worth engaging in...
i feel like i’ve seen a lot of people getting annoyed at butler saying “well there’s no universal theory of gender and all these things are much more complex than what we believe to be true and simple,” by simply doubling down on the ‘truth’ of things they believe to be simple. kinda funny as someone who actually studies this stuff, but also so annoying
This is rich given Butler’s engagement with gender critical feminism in her book is extremely selective and minimal. Alex Byrne reviewed it; check it out.
As a Marxist, I see this as a warning statement: this shows the blatant fact that, for the majority of the people, the debate of gender has no priority in their lives simply because they do not have a worry about gender, but with other things - better salaries, better working conditions, diminishment of the cost of living, better education for children and teenagers, etc - and to ignore those worries for the pursuit of tokenist identitarian politics is what led for the loss of the Left. The Left abandoned its roots - the working class - for the sake of a Liberal ideology that has reached its theorical limits.
Explain what specific standards “trans” people are measuring themselves against to determine that there is a "mismatch" - THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense they create an unnecessary distorted framework which needlessly causes distress. How are men or women "supposed” to think or feel, want to dress like or act? You must be able to provide specific standards for each sex for what you are contending to make any sense whatsoever. If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman, then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel? Female rights and protections are sex-based. Why should males be allowed to "identify" into spaces and activities exclusively reserved for the opposite sex?
i love this interview! i've been reading judith butler for the longest and love their work!! i appreciate your approach so much, especially your willingness to interview people in areas that you are not the most well versed in and being open learn/discover along the way. also super interesting that judith butler doesn't currently have a theory of gender, and you can both sit together and parse through some of these complex ethical questions without necessarily arriving at a conclusion, but seeking knowledge nonetheless. i appreciate what you do, thank you!!
@@maebellez 'Super interesting' that JB doesn't have a theory of gender?! It doesn't even have a definition and nobody knows what's being talked about. Would be ridiculous and pathetic if it weren't for the fact that this has real world consequences in which a lot of people are getting hurt, amongst other things
@@ebflegg She's what you might call "prize fat". There really isn't much to her if you aren't lulled into her house of smoke and mirrors. She's like a really amazing dingleberry just hanging onto the bottom of our culutre.
@dannyarbre6280 kids who are harming their bodies irrevocably Lesbians who are losing their culture Parents losing their children snd being prosecuted Women getting sexually assaulted and losing their privacy and protection People being ostracised and hounded Academics having their careers destroyed Women having to compete against men in sports Therapists and other professionals not being able to work ethically Etc etc
I enjoyed this interview very much. I have also learned a lot from her detailed explanation of the complexity of different issues, instead of giving easy answers.
This is an amazing channel and kudos on the brilliant guests you have here, even the ones I don’t always agree with, but always thought provoking. This was a specially good interview. ❤
How could you not cry when you see someone talking such pseudo-intellectual nonsense? She even called Hamas and Hisbollah allies of the Left. There’s good reason why no serious philosopher takes her seriously.
@@grahamjoss4643 That is very true..."Know thine enemy." I have been so disgusted with the garbage Butler puts out I can't stomach listening to her. Glad you could.
Interview Shir Hever. He is an Israeli economist who is a coordinator at BDS and argues Israel has major internal social, economic, and military issues the media is not discussing.
This conversation was illuminating, though I found myself wrestling with the indirect nature of many responses. I wonder if other listeners had a similar experience? As my first time engaging with Judith Butler's ideas and speaking at length (having only encountered their work peripherally before), I was particularly struck by their analysis of Trump's function for certain supporters - how he serves as a kind of figure for particular emotional and ideological investments in leadership, even as this creates tensions with fantastical and unrealistic views of what governance is built on or should maintain in a democratic framework. Butler's framing of the Harris administration as the "anti-Trump" option was insightful, while acknowledging the need for further development on immigration and Middle East policy - this allowed for more personal understanding of some of my own thinking in this election. While Butler's discussion touched on psychoanalysis, I found myself wanting more concrete examples of how psychoanalytic theory specifically informs their work on gender. This gap was particularly noticeable when considering theorists like Jean Laplanche, whose ideas about psychic asymmetry and translation seem potentially relevant to understanding gender and sexuality. What struck me was the absence of any discussion about the complex relationship between psychoanalysis as clinical practice versus its academic application. There's a tension here: psychoanalysis operates under specific therapeutic conditions for analysands, yet academics often appropriate these clinical insights for broader social theory and uses - sometimes in ways that might jeopardize its intent and drift from its original therapeutic context. This distinction, seems crucial to me, as an analysand myself for many years now, in which the ethics of how this kind of “practice” and its shared field is to be understood and applied beyond the clinic. None of this was really addressed in the conversation. Perhaps Butler explores this tension more thoroughly in their written work? Or it could just something I think of whenever academics speak about "psychoanalysis." What struck others about the interplay between psychoanalytic thought and gender theory in this discussion? How did you find Butler's brief focus on melancholy and mourning relating to gender if at all? I know this was a casual conversation but I thought maybe more would be spoken about there. Thank you for this! Alex
26:00 From the little I know about Anthropology, the question of gender exists in different forms in different cultures. Even what a determined gender means differs. What it means to be a woman changes from culture to culture. I know of one case in which kids have two fathers (who play different roles) - one of them being a maternal uncle.
Adult human females, are women. Man and woman denote sex and stage of maturity in humans. What a woman is, does not vary across cultures like you claim. A human being an adult, post-puberty, is not a "social construct" but a physical reality. That some cultures were deeply sexist and needed new boxes for people who deviated from sexist stereotypes is nothing to celebrate.
@@ambientjohnnyman and woman obviously denote way more than biology. they refer to social and cultural categories that are attached to the biological ones you’re describing
@@Graham-u2w No they don't. The regressive and sexist "trans" movement WANTS that to be the case, WANTS to change the definition from being neutral and rooted in physical reality, to referencing personality and adherence to sexist stereotypes, thus validating regressive attitudes and also perpetuating them. You lot are very backwards, yet so lack critical thinking skills or the ability to consider other perspectives that none of you can figure it out. Of course some of you do come to see the nonsense, sexism, narcissism and regressive nature of the ideology and leave it behind, but those people are just treated like heretical apostates who should be shunned. Even detransitioners get labelled "transphobic" for speaking up and anything they say about their previously held beliefs called "bigoted".
1:15:00 This is the exact same argument made by people like Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, and others during the early years of Nazi regime. They said the exact same thing, like being Nazi doesn't mean you are supporting the policies of Hitler. I think Kellner was didn't even join the Nazi party formally and claimed he was witness to the horrors. I think Hans Scholl and white rose movement was the only voice that resisted the Nazism in Germany, while other intellectuals who were very similar to Judith in their tone and not formal members were also complicit. Though, none of them faced any consequences. Its so astounding how Zionism has rotted the brains of everyone. Creating ethnic apartheid states will lead to fascism no matter how you go about doing it. I love what Judith has written in its context, but her claiming that she hasn't ever heard Gaza is concentration camp is a fine lie. She knows what Israel is doing is a genocide and there will be fallout from this. She is walking a fine line where she says she herself isn't a Zionist and also claims Zionism isn't bad only Netanheyu is. This is a subtle way of supporting the genocide without explicitly saying you support it. War crimes against the Palestinian didn't start in October. its over 75 years old. The original Nakba happened just before the establishment of Israel. I think we should submit Judith butler and her statement to the accountability archive as well.
i don’t think that’s what she’s saying at all, mainly because she has explicitly written about how ethnostates rely on violence (and gave israel as the main example) and cannot be sustained without that. she has quite clearly expressed opposition to israel in all her work. she never said “zionism isn’t bad only netanyahu is,” as you’ve seemed to hear, merely that reducing zionism as an idea to netanyahu’s government is incredibly reductive and unhelpful. i do think however, if you are taking a lifelong opponent of israel in action and words to be a zionist because you heard a phrase in an interview and assumed it meant something else, you are not a serious person. she literally said israel’s actions were genocidal in this interview. would highly recommend actually reading what they have to say about israel instead of basing your opinion off a 10 minute interview segment
@@itsbenbitch14 Zionism is inherently colonial and fascist. She was mad supporter of Israel and only changed her tone recently. She is doing exact same thing as Ethan Klein, saying look I said it's a genocide what more do you want. There are children being shredded while she is giving a lip. I don't know if you know anything about the Holocaust but there were people like this who made it happen.
i REALLY appreciate Judith's approach to discussions; for as educated & practiced as she is, she comes across SO down-to-earth. almost as soon as i have a question, she seems to already queueueueueue up an answer, or a revision to the question to better answer it. no shame, no brow-beating, but this open-invitation to just ASK. it seems the failure to question or the lack of curiosity is what gives way to hateful ideologies, and those who'd weaponise them.
Why is it that you believe females do not deserve single-sex spaces or single-sex activities? Explain why such blatant intolerance of female rights and protections, the notion that female boundaries should not be accepted or respected, is a morally justifiable position.
@@ambientjohnny - there is nothing in my comment that provided any sort of window for you to introduce this question directed at me. please feel free to explain why these questions are at the forefront of your mind.
"I think psycho analysis can be a form of cultural criticism" -- Butler has a level of self control and patience which could transmute iceburgs to oceans.
THEY ARE GREAT I LOVE THEM JUDITH I just won't cry "COME TO BRAZIL" like it's traditional of my people online to do so because last time we didn't treat Butler so goodly...
Been getting recommended videos from this channel and watching and enjoying the ones with people I knew before but I made the unfortunate mistake o looking who this Robinson guy is and run into his resume and I never felt this much unaccomplished before. Great interviews btw, keep them coming!
Owen Jones is touring America and interviewing Trump voters. He's just dropped a video and honestly it's absolutely wild. The disconnect between what Trump says, and how they describe him is simply mind blowing. Well worth checking out.
Yeap. Lost me @ 20:00min. To say an accomplished male athlete has less testosterone than a female athlete is wild. Giving controls, saying same age, competing in the same sport, without being a biologist or doctor, I dare say if that does happen it’s extremely rare. To make a generalization like that, is why people have issue with this type of thinking. That is an outlier and not a biological norm. Also, hermaphroditism is extremely rare. I don’t care what you want to call yourself. I don’t believe in discrimination or violence towards people for any reason. But, when you bring sports into conversation there a distinct reality we must recognize. I’m 5’9, almost 39. I’ll never be an NBA player. If you want to compete in sports, compete within your biological sex and competitive groups. Life isn’t fair. Get over it. As someone who spends too much time thinking sometimes. In my perspective, these discussions come from people spending too much time thinking and talking. Some of us don’t have that luxury.
Yes. She is relativizing the biological sex and her arguments are rare mutations. It seems a bit intellectually dishonest. She wants to make the case for gender as a relevant term, but it isn't and shouldn't be. Wherever it is relevant, the term sex is absolutely serving the purpose. And using the term gender when talking about violence toward women for example can lead to skewed statistics when it comes to male violence against women and girls. So it is important for the law to not do that, and she is. Also the way she characterised the gender critical feminists is unfair, makes me think she is making a fallacy on purpose. Same with taking de Bovoir quote out of context and inventing the meaning to include the "choice" of fulfilling the gender role.
@eleneakh YES, have the two schizophrenic, islam AND trans friendly, ''tolerant'' '''''thinkers'''''( didn't have enough quotation marks for that one) in a room and be the least representative members of their tribe. ;)
I wander how Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics would look at the field of gender, since you have a section on language and gender. Maybe something that can be explored in the future.
33:15 "who is benefitting from this?" This is the central question, which cannot be understood without diving into the political economy of society. As important as issues of gender, race, and other identities are - their isolated analysis can only tell us how they operate. It doesn't tell us why they operate that way. Butler replied that she is not opposed to questions of "who benefits?", but that these can skew our analyis. In fact, while It's important to look into questions of gender, race, etc, their operation cannot be understood without understanding the political economy and capitalism (i.e., who benefits) I'm always intrigued when people who are "not experts" on such subjects are able to pinpoint these central questions. It seems as though central questions are sometimes sidelined by mainstream academia. Therefore, the "non-experts", like you claimed yourself to be, can still ask these questions while to the "academics", these do not occur. Anyway, I enjoy your interviews. I was introduced to your channel through interviews of Norman Finkelstein. Good inputs in this interview as well. Cheers!
When societies become stressed and people become isolated and frustrated, it becomes very seductive to have people even less powerful than oneself as a scapegoat so that the establishment can trundle along a little bit more.
that’s why butler had moved away from gender largely, it’s more like when you have a musical guest and they sing their most popular song. she’s been much more concerned with broader issues recently, just not as well known for that
@@soymoder ''deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.'' Which is why Butler commercially exploited them by writing books full of non declarative, unfalsifiable ''statements'' for them. :D
I want to start off by saying that I really do like this channel so far, and have enjoyed the interviews I've listened to. That said, over an hour in to this one, and I have found the discussion so far to disappointingly superficial. On the occasion that the conversation threatened to stray into interesting territory where the guest's ideas might be explored and explicated, Butler came across as evasive and reluctant to say much of anything, and the host really didn't push back. Judith Butler is one of the most influential and controversial living philosophers/academics out there, and her ideas and approach have certainly been an influence on and inspiration to many. So it's disappointing l that the discussion here really only danced vaguely close to concepts and ideas she puts forward in her work. To be honest I'm not sure much of anything has been said beyond quite banal discussions of politics that you could hear between any undergrads, plus, what, the insight that psychoanalysis is expensive? I'll admit, I don't understand Butler, or her work, at all. But I'm not arrogant enough to assume that means there isn't value there, it's a shame that a couple of times, when she was asked on some specifics her answer was basically "well, that's very complicated", and then moved on. In Butler's writings and other interviews, it often feels like she takes great pains to avoid concretely saying anything at all, and instead uses a lot of verbiage to produce something so impenetrable it makes up for its own lack of substance. I'm open to the idea that I'm just too ignorant/too much of a dumbass to "get it". But it's a shame that seems to be replicated in her interviews also, where circumlocutions and nigglings over terminology and peripheral details eat up the time and the subject gets lost. Her interview with Novara media was similarly frustrating There also seems to be some fairly fast and loose of language here too. An hour in and it's really not entirely clear to a listener what it means to describe a politician as "against gender". And that allows certain conflations that aren't justified or even acknowledged (at least, not here). If a politician who is "anti gender" is someone against trans rights, in favor of repression of what are often called gender nonconforming people and/or behaviours, etc., why does it follow from that that "gender" in the sense of gender equality (or, really, women's liberation, which is what is implied here) is inherently a part of that attack? I mean, other than that you can construct your phrasing so that they use the same word if you want to... I mean sure, it's generally true that reactionary forces in society and politics are both anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman, for obvious reasons, but that in and of itself isn't a particularly interesting observation, and it feels like Butler is making a much deeper and grander claim (but which, here, isn't at all justified, or interrogated, or even really explained). So as an answer to the question it seems like something between a cop-out and wordplay Furthermore, even the term, "anti-gender" which she uses throughout the interview, is never explained. She seems to be using it as a substitute for what people on the right refer to as "anti gender ideology", but why, and what does she mean by it (other than as a little rhetorical flourish to say "actually, nuh-uh, it's *you* who's the ideologue", but I assume it's probably more than that?). Like take an Orban or even moreso a Putin, or even a garden variety religious republican; their whole thing is about men being men, and women being women (that is to say, strong social pressure and even coercion both legal and extrajudicial to maintain strict traditional gender roles). So what is the meaning behind using the term "anti-gender" to describe this, in what sense _is_ that "anti-gender", and what even is meant by "gender" there. I'm entirely open to the idea that Butler has something unique to say about that that would be thought provoking or indeed insightful. But we just didn't get any of that here. I'll still be watching this channel, that all said. Perhaps you might get a chance to get Butler back on, and actually prod her a little to explain some of her ideas, even if her go-to answer always seems to be "well, that's really complicated". Sure, I'm sure it is, but maybe we could try to at least start to go into it somewhat? It comes across like a defense mechanism to me; Judith, could we maybe take just a little peek at the emperor's gown please? For all I know, it really is glorious (after all, emperors in reality, unlike fables, rarely do wander around in the buff 😄)
@@soymoder or if you just meant "the comment is long" then, ok, guilty as charged I suppose. This is a philosophy channel though, I imagine it's allowed 🙃
I see the humanities lead to Continental Philosophy, and the natural sciences lead to Analytical Philosophy, honestly makes sense, if the dialectic is anything, it's a scambling machine, refuses to let anything be self stable and linear in progress.
42:35 I mean there is rapid onset gender dysphoria or maybe there isn't but it sure is being treated as if it existed when girls in their youth suddenly arrive with such conclusions.
I'll admit I am fairly new to the whole academic body of work in terms of culture studies so pls don't crucify me for saying this. But when reading Adorno I can't help but feel it is so applicable to the modern right. Enlightenment turned against the human Spirit feels like such an apt description of this crazy right wing way of thinking. The thrill comes from the legitimized violence, aimed at the eradication of human interference. Like in the Odyssey myth, where he ties himself to the mast and tells his crew to blindfold themselves and plug their ears. Blind and deaf obedience to the hero leader who is bound by destiny on a sacred mission. Eventually, this anti-humanity is aimed at things like art, philosophy, etc., since every human aspect must be eradicated in order to achieve the goal of perfect reason. That is where things spiral out of control. Then, the crazier the better, any resistance, all failures, will only reinforces the myth that humanity is the problem. We see this reflected in the new online media. Consuming media is taking on extreme forms. It is pretty normal for people to sit on a sofa with the tv on, while they are scrolling through instagram. It is ridiculously passivizing, there is no engagement, there is no thinking, and it is all the same across all platforms. Only the most superficial elements remain. Endless and mindless consumption of cat videos, outrage, memes, porn, etc. It constricts people's ability to think and conceive. Like many people today don't even know the concept of long form music because they only know about singles and playlists, and now there are even people starting to learn that music from memes can actually be entire songs. The only thrill that comes out of this is the illusion of liberation. Thousands of hours of content get uploaded every second, you can access the entire world of knowledge. completely free to look up anything you want, etc. But in reality most of what you watch is heavily curated by algorithms, and content creators, for purely economic reasons. This is the same with trump, and why he thrives so incredibly well in this new online environment. They are eating cats and dogs is a meme format, the J6 comity is long and boring and far too complicated. He promises the illusion of liberation, from the deep state, the woke, the illegals, etc. That is why he 'speaks to them', because they can only conceive of the memes, not the long form anymore. In fact, the long form is antagonistic, it is uncomfortable, it contradicts the myth of 'how things actually are' and most therefor be eradicated.
34:10 perhaps for more nuance here, apart from what was mentioned, on a local level this division is deeply tied to self-identity and relationship dynamics, where individuals adopt certain gendered roles within social units that shape their interactions and goals. Additionally, gender differences play also a role in sexual desire, where attraction is often fueled by how closely individuals align with idealized gender representations. Of course, this is not to say that these may be very well external influences of the power structure, such as societal discourses and commercial interests, that shape our understanding of gender-specific behaviors (e.g., beauty standards for women). Ultimately, this division could reflect both a natural tendency based on our perceptions of "differences" historized reinforced by rationalization of underlying power dynamics within gender roles.
1:03:20 Being free to hate is important because who decides? Sure we should socially shun it but it's not for winner-take-all internet platforms let alone the state to decide.
Why does no one who interviews Judith Butler challenge her in any serious way? They never seem to understand the arguments against her ideas on gender and sex, and she ends up saying the same incoherent things every time while the interviewer nods their head in agreement. It is so infuriating. Listen to Kathleen Stock or Holly Lawford-Smith or Alex Byrne to understand how to ask her serious questions. MANY people who disagree with her are not in the least bit right wing. If you believe that, you have no idea who her critics are.
Kathleen Stock is an absolute joker, and whatever Butler lacks in clarity and/or coherence, Stock exceeds mightily in ignorance and sheer sloppiness/laziness. I'll check out the other two names though
He mirrors the frustration of the disenfranchised class and gives them a strong emotional freedom to express their rage. I shudder to imagine what 4 more years of a Trump "witches brew" will bring.
Maybe, but do you figure it is systemically possible enfranchise people under the current system of the US? I ask because I'm not convinced regarding my own country of Norway, that the existing system is fit to actually face the future without some crisis to shake things up. I'm not at all interested in right wing, but when politicians are so comfortable achieving basically nothing, and just protecting the status quo that is a slow extraction of resources from the many to the few, how do we actually get anything done? I don't know that voting is sufficient either, the extracting class has deep influence over the media, and thus they can easily divert meaningful movements, and have us bickering about minute details in our policies, rather than act and course correct as needed.
More like a team to pick. Hard to say he mirrors any frustrations when all that manifests from his and his followers doings is striving toward implementing as many social dividers as possible. Sure this country has problems but it is a silly oversimplification to then come to conclusion that trump was inevitable then due to the issues present. Americans have it easy so they pick a candidate that in no way will benefit their living and pick the whacky guy, and the popular vote is so easily ignored in favor of an unelected electoral college is what led to trump in my opinion
@@Late_not_on_time I think you underestimate how seductive demagogues throughout history are for isolated frustrated powerless people who are desperate for simple narratives to explain their misery. The vast majority of trump supporters are extremely isolated, stressed and disenfranchised people who want all the benefits of community and culture without actually participating in it within the context of their own neighborhoods and communities. They’ve retreated into their homes and jobs and in some cases churches but even most church going community belonging/participating people have little or no interest in the petty narratives of trump.
Both candidates are absolutely shameful and grossly unfit for office. I will vote for the platform that best represents my values. and just FYI, I wouldn't want to be president for the greatest treasure on earth. Whoever is in office for the next four years is going to bear the blame when everything comes unraveled.
Judith Butler wrote this lol: "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."
That's a perfectly understandable and grammatically sound sentence. This is a ChatGPT summary: The shift from a structuralist view, where capital is seen as uniformly shaping social relations, to a hegemonic view, where power is seen as flexible and reconfigurable, introduced a focus on temporality in structural theory. This change moved away from Althusser’s idea of fixed structures, highlighting instead the contingent and adaptable nature of hegemony, where power is continuously reshaped through specific, evolving strategies and sites of influence.
The strange thing is that even if we assume that the Jews (Europeans) who are now in Palestine are Semites and ignore all other opinions. It is known that the term anti-Semitism came as a result of their persecution in Europe. And it is known that Europe persecuted only the Jews and not the other Semites (Arabs). The question is why did they use the term anti-Semitism instead of the term anti-Judaism, which is more accurate!!! Perhaps Sejer will be drawn to researching the beliefs of the Jews!!!! Perhaps the results will be shocking😅😅😅
I thought she said “women” and then figured “other people” would be “girls”. (But I was also initially confused by her wording and had to figure it out.)
@@chucknorris7448 huh, I answered this question, but the TH-cam auto censor has removed my answer. I'll try again: the answer would be trans men and non binary people with the capability of getting pregnant. It's a small group, but they exist 🙃
@@Muzikman127 Why are you listing "gender identities" when the op was specifically referencing sex? "non-binary" is not a sex, and "trans men" are female so not separate from other females at all as you have so ridiculously suggested.
Judith seemed to enjoy pretending like she didn’t understand your questions and made moments unnecessarily defensive and awkward. In this environment with so much hate and misunderstanding around gender it would’ve been great for this prominent thinker to be a little more generous and warm but I guess she’s sick of talking about it after decades.
I suspect part of it is because one of the goals of post-structuralist philosophy is to challenge our default assumptions about what is normal. A lot of those default assumptions are the kinds of things that get coded into the premise of a question, rather than being the subject of the question itself. It's the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" problem: sometimes the best answer to the question is to challenge the question. In some cases, I suspect Butler's understanding of gender is so radically different that they *genuinely* didn't think the questions as posed made sense.
@@deadeaded And also, sometimes it wasn't that, sometimes the nitpicking really was exactly that. "We come from a culture where gender traditionally has been painted as being a simple binary, why do you think that is, where does that come from in your view?" (paraphrase) is not a tricky question to process. And as one of the leading and most prominent theorists/writers on gender and society, it's much more interesting to at least begin to answer that question, than to niggle around "but what society are we even in, maaan? What even is society, maaan? What do you mean "traditional"?", oh come on! I know that's a very uncharitable phrasing of it, but it is basically how she engaged with the questions. Like you know what is being asked Judith, it's a jumping off point to discuss what gender is and how it operates, is it really necessary to be shitty about it to a well-meaning interviewer 😅 Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair there, but it did feel a lot like this sometimes, lots of niggling as a sort of offensive defensiveness
Wow, how the left sees the right: ‘they want to be free to hate’. The same way you now realize that the right doesn’t believe what Trump says literally, can’t you also see that it doesn’t have anything to do with hate? The left WANTS to believe the right ‘hates’, because it means the left can believe it is on the ‘side of angels’. It’s really really weird to think the other side ‘wants to hate’. They want to be free, period. That includes the freedom to say things that are uncomfortable and cause others to feel things they might not like. If you cannot understand that that is what freedom is, then I suppose nothing can make you understand.
Suppose my own personal freedoms would oblige it: if I were to keep you trapped in a room for three days without your consent, would you have the right to be upset with me for causing you to "feel things that you might not like"? Would you think that I "hate" you? To the point: your notion of freedom seems incredibly self-centered.
@ I don’t follow what locking people up for three days has to do with what the left or the right thinks. As for freedom, it doesn’t have anything to do with self centeredness. People must be able to speak their minds. To call bullshit on the dogmas, to be able to speak truth to power. That is freedom.
You'd be amazed at what the right thinks of the left, I don't think it's much more positive. And I don't believe that everyone who holds right wing beliefs holds those beliefs because they are hateful or something but I do think it's a bit true that the more right wing you consciously are, like someone who considers themselves far right, probably does hold a lot of hateful beliefs and falls back onto conservatism/right wing values as a way to be uncritical or to justify said beliefs. And considering most right wing beliefs are exclusionary.. to hold that type of belief in my opinion is to have some implicit hate that you haven't dealt with
@@ktk44man it’s quite dangerous, and a bit silly really to think people who do not see things the way you see them are hateful, or desiring to hate. Dangerous because it reinforces the idea in you that you yourself are ‘good’ or ‘loving’ by contrast. A bit silly, because it’s pretty silly to think all those people ‘must be wrong’, because they see things not your way. Who would flatter themselves that much? And ‘he did it too’ is not an argument, for this speaker to seriously say what she says about ‘those people wanting to hate’. That is the easiest, most self congratulatory way possible to see things.
@@ktk44man that’s the point really, you see everything in people that do not agree with your worldview as some form of hate. I know that that rethoric has been spewed endlessly, but it is nonsense. There is no ‘desire to hate’ or ‘implicit hate’. You are really fooling yourself if you buy into that. There are lots of reasons why democrats have lost, lots of reasons why people voted for Trump, but it has zero to do with hate. It has to do with what the Democrats stand for these days, the direction they seem to want to go in. You call it inclusion, except it isn’t inclusive, it is only inclusive of the people that agree and align with the crazy.
"Trans women are beautiful and inspiring" is just another platitude. Objectively some of them are indeed "beautiful" after many cosmetic procedures. But there is absolutely nothing inspiring about having gender dysmorphia anymore than it's inspiring that my son currently has strep throat
They can be all of those things and society still have a healthy debate. They key is isolating the bigots from the advocates. The advocates are usually ppl who are ALSO from marginalized groups & want Trans rights while expressing legitimate concerns & recognizing that before performing Womanhood TransFems were males who have approached Women's space with many demands, a GREAT degree of entitlement & little consideration of impact & outcome towards women
I disagree with the term "fascist passions." These aren't passions that lead inherently and essentially and undisputably to fascism, these are passions that have merely been being channelled towards fascism as a specific political form in the last couple of hundred years because of fascism's unique explosiveness and potency in countering western constitutional democracy under which they have been seriously suppressed, both politically and culturally. I think it's "misguided" to NOT recognise this as a failing inherent to the system (of liberal democracy, both political and moral) and merely wish for the blissful ignorance of the system to be preserved for a little while longer. While many of these passions are certainly being stirred up by class differences exacerbating racial tensions etc. that is not the whole picture. We live perhaps locked inside our own present-moment binary on this issue - it's sort of agreed upon in our collective consciousness that hateful and ignorant are adjectives that go together, while we would collocate enlightenment probably with something like empathy or tolerance. But this is a very limited and limiting view. These cthonic passions need channelling, channelling that isn't necessarily pro-social, but that likewise doesn't lead to explosions of ignorance that debase us as a culture (or cultures), that destroy and level complexity. Some would argue we already do channel them through art, but even a cursory overview of contemporary art shows a lasting obsession with the value of pro-social instincts and a tendency to treat the cthonic either as a tragedy that must be avoided or as something we only indulge in superficially and "for fun". We are incredibly afraid to really delve into "the heart of darkness," unless we wield some torch of goodness against it. This is the prevailing mood of our culture to a substantial degree. And it's the reason why being "free to hate" really does offer such a strong sense of power, liberation, and transgression to those on the right. Currently the only somewhat entrenched medium through which one can channel these passions in their full force is the alt right, which makes the alt right attractive to vast numbers of people. On the other hand, I am seriously tired of terms such as "vulnerable" and "community" when referring to minorities. Although they technically might be correct and might appeal to them, they almost reify their status as victims within the cultural consciousness. Seems to me that the attempts to steer the culture away from "wickedness" in part also result in these groups being MORE exposed to violence and (more importantly) oppression, and less prepared to form an actual independent self-defence. The fascists are composed of able-bodied young men who are ready to commit violence. Neither the left nor the minorities (not to equate the two) have an adequate response to that that doesn't rely on the power of the State which has always been a fickle ally anyway. And on top of that, we increasingly conceive of ourselves as a group that reacts rather than a group that influences and leads change. Of course, this ties back to class and oppression, but actually, the vast majority of those on the right are also oppressed under class and yet that doesn't stop them from having that fervour and fire of someone about to conquer the world, no matter how much their politics is still based on resentment and a sense of victimhood.
Can anyone speak to the correctness or otherwise of this claim at 20:45? I had understood that, excepting cases of endocrinological abnormality, the lowest levels of testosterone in biological males exceeded the highest levels in biological females. Is this not so?
this is not true - im a researcher w/ a background in neuroendocrinology. the distribution of testosterone lvls between those assigned male at birth and those assigned female at birth are overlapping, part of why "sex" is a much more complex term in biology than it is in colloquial discourse
@@kamrynduplessis1997 Stop LYING. There is no overlap whatsoever between male and female testosterone levels. The lowest T level male has higher T than the highest level female. The fact that you are even writing "assigned" as if what sex a person is wasn't a matter of objective fact just underlines how disingenuous you are.
41:30 There's the issue that you might be right happy with your sex but if people bring it up you do start wasting your time on investigating a part of your identity that is probably rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Unless there really is nothing left for people to do and we are at the end of history. Of course it's a really important issue to some people regardless and so I tend to say we should be mindful of the downsides of representation too like maybe that's not the best approach to legislative improvements for those people.
I was ready to like her and engage in her ideas but why is she so slippery on her theory snd current understanding of gender? If she wrote a book about it recently, she must have a working definiton to offer from which to start.
i think she said it when she said that she wants to keep things open to discussion. i think as time as gone on she probably has differing definitions of gender, but i think to mistake a philosopher’s idea of gender as the only idea people adopt as if they’ve cracked the only code isn’t the best way to go about it, and i think that’s what she’s talking about here.
@@sateleim that´s true. 🙏 I also honour that she admits that she doesn´t know (right now), or is changing her mind, or something like that. I remember coming across such an admition while studying, one of my academic heroes at Harvard actually published something like "I love this line of poetry but I don´t know what it means". I was actually so struck by this humble admition that I wrote to him -- and he even replied! Humility is definitely a virtue, and the courage to say that, actually, yes, I am also just human and am allowed to change my mind.
I was a Sociology student in the 80s in Australia, an absolute eye opener at the time. Thank you, Judith Butler, for making the terms gender and sex more complicated, it is always a breath of fresh air to listen to you!
Butler is disappointing. She's prolific scholar but you can see her being indecisive, almost apologetic, when it comes to Israel. You can't solely blame Netanyahu for the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine. Majority of the Israeli society endorses and supports the state's genocide of Palestinians. Again, profound disappointment to see butler being ambiguous and dithering in her condemnation of Israel's genocidal onslaught
@@SvenErik_Lindstrom3 this is from today, November 14: "UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war"
They are not actually, they are part of Jewish voice for peace and have written extensively on the matter and the long and slow violence that Palestinians have had to suffer for ages. They are just speaking to the reality of the jewish community in America where over half identify as zionist, mostly because that became the norm over time, but only a small percent of them belief Jews are superior to non-jews or palestinians for that matter. They speak to the contradictions that exist within the American-Jewish community of the belief of zionism as a form of safety for jewish people and the reality of zionism as a colonial and oppressive ideology for Palestinians. It is actually a tactic to deconstruct this web of contradictions and often fear-based belief.
True, anti-Zionism doesn’t necessarily mean anti-Semitism, just as anti-immigration doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Latino sentiment, pro-policing doesn’t inherently mean anti-Black, and pro-life advocacy doesn’t necessarily equate to being anti-woman. Similarly, support for traditional gender roles isn’t inherently anti-transgender, and opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t necessarily anti-LGBTQ. Just as there is a nuanced distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, similar distinctions should be made in these other topics as well. If we want to be fair and rational, it’s essential to recognize these nuances across all areas of discourse. However, if one is unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt and good-faith understanding to others, it may be unrealistic to expect that same consideration in return.
So, what is your stance on Israel then? Do you support Israels right to exist, and destroy it's enemies who want to destroy them? Do you recognize there are only two s*x*s/genders?
No thanks, I don't care to have a conversation on TH-cam about this topic with someone who has already misquoted me. I didn't say that being anti-equal rights for LGBTQ is not also anti-LGBTQ. Clearly, you already misinterpreted what I said, which a problem. If you couldn't understand my original comment, what hope is there for a reasonable, open-minded conversation.
@@lindaberard5065 Explain how the "trans" movement is not anti-gay itself, with all the males who deny being homosexual due to their "gender identity", ie claiming that they are not gay but heterosexual because they are "trans women" attracted to men. They are literally same-sex attracted aka gay, but reject this reality and claim to be heterosexual. Similarly you have completely heterosexual males who claim to be "trans lesbians", their "gender identity" being "trans women" and attracted to females - males attracted to females claiming to be "lesbians"... Have you seriously never thought of those aspects?
I guess I’m in the privileged position of not really understanding what much of the gender issue is about but I do appreciate, and have done for a couple of decades (since before the current culture war), Butler’s serious and empathetic approach to ethical issues
So those men who can’t make the men’s Olympic team, can take some hormones and play on the women’s team. It is neither coherent nor workable. But for Butler, equity and inclusion are imperative, in any and all domains of life. But competitive sports are anything but equal and inclusive, and that indeed is the point.
Why is it that you believe females do not deserve single-sex spaces or single-sex activities? Explain why such blatant intolerance of female rights and protections, the notion that female boundaries should not be accepted or respected, is a morally justifiable position.
@TDavies-o9w Because I like her and because I want "The Left" to agree broadly. Also I think she has that feeling Kurt Cobain had when he was forced to play Smells Like Teen Spirit into infinity and rednecks started liking it. If we're not careful she may start self-harming.
Trump is expressing freedom of speech just like this lady is. Name calling doesn't carry weight anymore, like the boy who cried wolf. Trump followed thru everything that he promised in his term in 2016. Where's the lying part? She has a lot of hate, envy & bitterness. Apologies for the name-calling response.
I don’t trust these some of these random peoples ideas that came up last few decades I trust beautiful historic paintings and sculpture and literature and arts of men and women.
As a scholar of Husserl it blows my mind how "analytic philosophers" are oblivious of his work and it's impact on the 20th century - both "continental" and "analytic" philosophy. And it blows my mind regarding the lack of curiosity of analytic types. I've read every single analytic philosopher of note - from Frege to Kit Fine. And then I meet an analytic and they giggle at the very name of Levinas, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida - the indoctrination in hard core analytic programs is no joke. Otherwise good stuff as always.
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Her inability/ unwillingness to engage with ANY factual definitions, the vague language she uses to baffle easily impressed morons and her lack of fluency when speaking opposed to her ''prolific'' writing are all BIG , BIG red flags. You're welcome.
@@rocksparadoxGiven that her work deals significantly in presentation, representation, and understanding, are you sure you're just not just refusing to engage with ideas outside of the objective? There's a place for that, for those of us who aren't terrified of ideas outside of the mainstream.
One of the most important philosophers of our time, shifted the foundations of an entire field of study and practice, worth far more than anything money can buy, generally only understood by people who study, vilified by the ignorant.
Isn’t it interesting how Robinson uses this kind of tactic to avoid making a comment that reflects his own view point by resorting to MY FRIEND OR MY PARENTS OR A TEACHER OF MINE OR WHOEVER said THIS OR THAT …
Hello, Mr. Erhardt. This is a fascinating interview. It seems like it was also a difficult interview, because gender philosophy is slippery and because Butler often responded defensively. Thank you for hearing her out: I think she was not targeting you, but rather that she was used to protecting herself against these same questions being asked in bad faith. I am a transgender woman, and I appreciate that you were willing to take the time to listen to Butler and to investigate the philosophy of gender. I have a personal theory of gender based in phenomenology. Jacques Lacan posits that one of the ways we humans form our identity is in the mirror stage -- when our mother (or parent, more broadly) is holding us as an infant, and we see ourself in her (their) arms. At this moment, we realize we are a separate, whole person. This is how I understand it. It is an essentially phenomenological movement: incorporating an external thing (the reflected image) into our own self. I posit that we form our identity through visual reflections continually across our lives. My experience of gender dysphoria when I was trying to live as a man, was that I saw someone else when I looked in the mirror. I did not see myself; I saw a stranger. It is a very saddening feeling to go through life with. We can extend the idea of reflection to other images we project which are not essentially visual, like our speech and our writing. Probably this sounds a lot to you like the performative theory of gender, and maybe it is just that. But to me, I feel like it goes a step further than mere performativity. To say that performance of a gender makes one an instantiation of the platonic ideal of that gender, feels vacuous to me; it cheapens gender and human identity more broadly. I would say that gender is latent in us, and we reveal it through both our deliberate and our accidental performances of gender. I would also go further, to flip the platonic instantiation on its head: the ideal is derived from the many instantiations, not the other way around. Ideal forms are immanent on their preexisting instantiations. I thought maybe you'd find this interesting. Have a good day!
@ambientjohnny Uhm, well I think in an ideal world men ought to behave ethically, like people of any gender. To the extent that humans can control our thoughts, I also think that it is ideal to not fixate on unethical or harmful lines of thought. Feelings are pretty much entirely involuntary, in my experience: so, I don't feel comfortable making any proscriptive or prescriptive statement there. I wonder if you're referencing or thinking about male social norms, like bravery or stoicism. I am of the opinion that gender-coded traits like these are ethically neutral, and we ought to judge people exhibiting them by how they employ the traits, not by which traits they feel comfortable with. Sometimes masculinity is wielded in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, and sometimes it's just secondary to other considerations. the same could be said of femininity, and of androgyny. so, i think we all are "supposed" to act ethically, think responsibly, and feel honestly. i am sorry if i implied something more draconian.
@@dimimegesis No, "trans" ideology posits that an adult male can "not feel like a man" (and a pre-pubescent male can "not feel like a boy") - so what are these feelings they supposedly have which are out of bounds for boys/men? So, If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman (or boy/girl), then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel?
@@ambientjohnny Hello again, @ambientjohnny. I think that your first paragraph makes false assertions. I have never heard a transgender person say that "an adult male can 'not feel like a man'" in the proscriptive, prohibitory sense of 'cannot.' I was assigned male at birth, and I lived for a long time in such a way that I tried to be a man but felt unhappy doing so. I was incapable of being masculine and content in my identity, which is the sense in which I think transgender women et al mean 'can not feel a man.' i.e. we personally are not able to achieve healthy masculinity, and we feel healthy and comfortable in other gender expressions. Your second paragraph asks interesting questions. First: I would agree there is no one right way to demonstrate masculinity (or femininity, or androgyny, et cetera). But, there is at least one wrong way to be a man: to be a toxically patriarchal man. Patriarchy legitimizes violence against the groups oppressed by patriarchy, which is unethical and immoral. Second: the existence of the "mismatch" which transgender people like me experience ('dysphoria') is more complicated than being "between what they are and how they feel." All humans in society experience ourselves as interpellated into gender: we are assigned a sex at birth which society generally expects will and ought to align with the gender we occupy in social interactions throughout our future life. So this is to what you refer when you say, "what they are" -- the expected social role of a person based on the sex marker on their original birth certificate. Then, "what they feel" is the lived experience of people. My lived experience was that I was assigned male at birth, and I felt deeply unhappy and cognitively dissonant within the male social role that was expected of me. This dissonance -- dysphoria -- is the experience of "mismatch." Over time, it became clear that there was a mismatch between my assigned sex at birth, and the gendered social role in which I healthily and comfortably fit. My attempt to unhealthfully perform as a man generated the experience of dysphoria, because of the mismatch. The positive content of my character aligns most strongly with femininity, which is why I live now as a transgender woman. I am more happy as a woman, and I am more healthfully integrated into society as a woman. My experience of dysphoria is now in the past, which I am very thankful for. I assert that some actions are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. I do not disavow the existence of social masculinity in all forms. I support healthy masculinity for those whom it suits. I hope this answers your questions.
Judith is phenomenal. There is no other way to put it. I am a PhD from Berkeley and a prof at McGill U. The last time I met her she took the time to listen. That's what Judith does. She listens to everyone. Do the same.
Thanks for giving us your CV, so that we now you're an authority 🤦🏽♀️
Lol, she doesn’t listen to gender critical women, gay people, parents and people with disabilities. Shame on her.
"Judith is phenomenal" sounds suspiciously like something Husserl would say. Is that you, Husserl?
@@KhalidMedani-fs8us she’s a crusty irrelevant fossil bro
She certainly doesn't seem able to listen to and comprehend what anyone gender critical is saying... (the amount of strawmanning she deflects with is absurd)
She is amazing. I love how she gently says she's moved on to new thought projects and why without using divisive language. If I could communicate as thoughtfully and kindly as she does...if we all could.
Can you please explain to me what a "new thought project" is exactly?
She caused the most devision in families than anyone. Are you kidding?
@NYCBigBull
As the intersex dad of a trans woman , I may assure thr division was here way long before Judith Butler's work. No human being has such amount of power to be '' The'' Cause.
@metaldemort libs always take the "well its on both sides " when losing. No, its just the left. They use vulnerable monorities as pawns to gain political power . They create a suffering minority and a plea for compassion, to trick good people into voting for them. They are the biblical wolf in sheeps clotbing.. The far left :, progressives and queer marxists , and Judith Butler, made up a new religion , a cult of the "gendered soul "and convinced kids they were "trans" putting them at serious medical risk , frightening us all with false threats of sui***ide They also used the new college aged "nonbinary" mentaly ill straight women to co-opt real trans and gay people's identity and legitimacy to push a devisive gender ideology, created by Judith Butler, with the plan to abolish the sex binary , parental rights , thus destabilize the nuclear family in order to destroy capitalism, because the nuclear family is " the reproductive means of capitalism" . These Queer Marxists and Socialist's are using vulnerable people in their revolution to gain power inside our institutions, and schools, open the nations borders to anyone give them welfare and the right to vote,, They want to bolish freedom of speech, remove the electoral college, take away guns and end private property ownership ..All to put rich leftists in permanent power of a one party government, so they can end capitalism and usher in a socialist utopian state. No, this kind of devilishness, this kind of organized divisiveness, and cruelty to vulnerable minorities is not happening on botb sides, and No, its been happening for years,,no never tbis powerful , never this demonic before.
judith butler uses they/them pronouns!
Always a privilege to listen to professor Judith Butler. Thank you.
a philosopher who puts much more emphasis on the question than the answer. not better or worse for it, but you can tell it annoys a lot of people that aren’t familiar with the approach
truthfully, there are times where the aim is more important than the caliber
Indeed. 💯 Alas, this is endemic midst an audience unfamiliar with post-Kantian so-called ‘Continental’ philosophy-and they are of course not to be blamed for that, but who are therefore (even as they are unaware of being) caught in the paradigm of the reigning scientistic ‘logic’ where meaning and knowledge are ‘always’ discursively attainable, contextually transcendent, and akin to mathematics. A few clever types will claim that Butler’s style is all post-modern mumbo jumbo, empty of content. For one thing, this is a deeply ignorant claim, historically speaking, when in fact the limitations of the scientistic approach to the world and its conception of language were already being heavily questioned in the 1790s by figures such as Herder, Hamann, Humboldt, and by many other thinkers since. Her so-called opaque style, in its very approach, solicits us to question our deeply ingrained prejudices about the attainment of meaning, knowledge, and values.
@@EyeByBrian Yep. A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Just the fact of all this "gender bender" garbage being put onto children is an abuse in my book. It's horrid.
@@EyeByBrian is it not possible that complexity science might be capable of bridging the gap that's previously existed between nominalist, antihumanist philosophies distrustful of the linear determinations of classical mechanics and positivism?
@@nickb863 What do you mean when you say ''complexity science''?
Is that some sort of integrated form of social science with actual, (at this stage of our human development) measurable science?
Give examples of ''nominalist, antihumanist philosophies ''!
What are ''linear determinations of classical mechanics and positivism'' , are you referring to physics or Marxist, postmodern, post structuralist dogma?
continental here. to your point: questions themselves are philosophical problems in much of the tradition. also, Butler was influenced by Derrida who also approaches philosophical conversations like this. you see this especially when Butler says "I don't have one. I'm not useful in that way." gold. try to unpack that..
Why is she so hard to read yet soothingly clear and articulate during talks? 😭
Man you really get the best guests and are clearly curious to learn about subjects you might not be traditionally familiar with. I always appreciate your openness and fluidity in conversations. Thanks again for all your work!
I think people want to be justified in their hate and act upon it by stripping freedom from the ones they hate. All the while denying it is hate😢
This may be true, and if it is indeed true then it is incredibly sad! 😢
It used to be considered the people’s court when black men and black sympathizers were strung up, lynched, tarred, or mutilated by hoards in the name of ‘justice’ (usually based on false accusations) …I think it’s objective unless you humanize all, if not then humanity is subject to objectivity
The trans hate of women is intense, and I really wish they would just get their jack boots off the necks of women and tell males to stay the F out of female only spaces and services. I am just tired of the the hateful agenda, and the trans terrorists.
Lol😂😂😂😂 get ready for them to win again if you really believe it
Lol😂😂😂😂 get ready for them to win again if you really believe it
Religion plays a huge role on people’s thinking, and what they are willing to accept.
Yes, trans religion is a drug.
Judging by some of the comments, we need an update on an old play: “Who’s afraid of Judith Butler?”
''Who's impressed by postmodern, unfalsifiable, meaningless dribble?''
Wait, that's too long, let's use : “Who’s afraid of Judith Butler?” instead, you're ''right''.
@ postmodernism is just architecture that came after modernism. No big words needed. Don’t be scared.
Why not? We should maybe be scared of bad ideas.
@ if you are scared of an idea you should investigate the idea and yourself to find out why.
@@geinikan1kan you are giving too much credit to an academicist who is so drowned in Liberal ideology that she cannot see that this same ideology has reached its theorical limits.
And as a Marxist, she is simply holding a VERY poor argument for the questions at hand because she cannot accept the fact that it was the obssession to identitarian politics that led to the loss of the Left in the elections.
I notice that many of the comments that express dislike for Butler and their theories do not seem to be able to point to any actual concrete reasoning as to why they dislike their theories or answers. I would be curious to see what someone had to say that has some weight in the critique, rather than just another opinion. I notice that Butler is able to give logos, or reasoning for their logical deductions. However, many of the critics in these comments fail to do so.
Don't worry, it's all pathos, no logos will ever be found in the writings of the most dense but least impressive mind that Butler possesses.
No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity.
Explain what specific standards “trans” people are measuring themselves against to determine that there is a "mismatch" - THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense they create an unnecessary distorted framework which needlessly causes distress.
How are men or women "supposed” to think or feel, want to dress like or act? You must be able to provide specific standards for each sex for what you are contending to make any sense whatsoever. If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman, then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel?
Female rights and protections are sex-based. Why should males be allowed to "identify" into spaces and activities exclusively reserved for the opposite sex?
@@ambientjohnnyYour answer clearly shows that you haven't read Butler. They do not decorrelate sex and gender, and were actually harshly criticised by some feminists who do. To Butler, the notion of "biological sex" is as much of a construct as the "social gender". Gender trouble advocates for fluidity and subversive acts of "performance" which question the binary, not medical transition. However, medical transitions are healthcare, and you can't blame individuals for adhering, in spite of themselves to gender sterotypes. The "born in the wrong body" discourse is a convenient way to explain what many trans people feel, it doesn't imply a total disconnection between the gendered soul and the sexuated body.
There definitely are some ethical problems that come with medical transitions, and they probably should be adressed more clearly, but it doesn't require acting like sex is not a construct. Acknowledging it is a step towards more fluidity, which is the key to people feeling safe and confortable with their body without surgery. Surgery at this point, is a matter of survival for some non gender-conforming people who are just trying to "pass", because not passing means risking your life...
Butler performed a deconstruction of gender, norms, and values at a philosophical level while obfuscating class relations and antagonisms at the level of politics and experiential life. Butler was part of the academic disparaging of left economic populism and, by intention or not, supported the liberal wing of the democratic party over and against the class politics with bernie, and thus contributed to the rise and persistence of trump. Butler should not be let off the hook for this. If you want a serious response to a particular work, I could do that too. I have many, especially in Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly.
@@rocksparadox shut up lol
I have always looked up to Judith as a bright intellect with integrity. Great choice of interview. Thank you.
Thanks so much!
@@robinsonerhardt Oh Robinson… I already lost respect for you when you expressed sympathies for Norman Finkelstein. I really wonder how somebody who is familiar with logic can take Judith Butler seriously. Literally every serious philosopher thinks she‘s a complete bullsh!tter. She’s the total opposite of a clear writer.
@@robinsonerhardt There are literally philosophy professors (e.g. Sokal, Bricmont, Hübl) who gave lectures on „bullshit“ and used Judith Butler as an example. She’s well known for her obscurantism and pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
@funckmasta That makes sence.
@@funckmasta that means they must be right. No need to read their actual work and decide for yourself. 👍 That would be too difficult :(
Was great to hear Judith Butler discuss these topics. Keep doing what you’re doing
Judith, we adore your work, from Algeria, North Africa
yes we do! (im also algerian)
@lament22 really? that's fantastic. waybe watch her together lol
@@chakib7318 Yes and enjoy the women's boxing
@@ebflegg that amateur boxer in the Olympics is just a tomboy woman, she is not transsexuel or bipolar. and she lost so many times to other amateur women boxers. so please don't take it as a tranny competing against women.
Awesome.
Half the people in the comments don't even know what Butler is talking about and advocates for (and don't even try to understand, nor listen), and the other half came here just to hate on them because they saw them in the thumbnail, while not actually seeing the video.
It's ridiculous, and further proves the point of their new book "Who's afraid of gender" - people don't even know what Butler's arguments are, and they don't even want to know. Anything that could potentially destroy their little world that is filled with their little social boxes, is for them not even worth engaging in...
i feel like i’ve seen a lot of people getting annoyed at butler saying “well there’s no universal theory of gender and all these things are much more complex than what we believe to be true and simple,” by simply doubling down on the ‘truth’ of things they believe to be simple. kinda funny as someone who actually studies this stuff, but also so annoying
This is rich given Butler’s engagement with gender critical feminism in her book is extremely selective and minimal. Alex Byrne reviewed it; check it out.
As a Marxist, I see this as a warning statement: this shows the blatant fact that, for the majority of the people, the debate of gender has no priority in their lives simply because they do not have a worry about gender, but with other things - better salaries, better working conditions, diminishment of the cost of living, better education for children and teenagers, etc - and to ignore those worries for the pursuit of tokenist identitarian politics is what led for the loss of the Left.
The Left abandoned its roots - the working class - for the sake of a Liberal ideology that has reached its theorical limits.
Explain what specific standards “trans” people are measuring themselves against to determine that there is a "mismatch" - THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense they create an unnecessary distorted framework which needlessly causes distress.
How are men or women "supposed” to think or feel, want to dress like or act? You must be able to provide specific standards for each sex for what you are contending to make any sense whatsoever. If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman, then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel?
Female rights and protections are sex-based. Why should males be allowed to "identify" into spaces and activities exclusively reserved for the opposite sex?
Thank you for your time producing these
i love this interview! i've been reading judith butler for the longest and love their work!! i appreciate your approach so much, especially your willingness to interview people in areas that you are not the most well versed in and being open learn/discover along the way. also super interesting that judith butler doesn't currently have a theory of gender, and you can both sit together and parse through some of these complex ethical questions without necessarily arriving at a conclusion, but seeking knowledge nonetheless. i appreciate what you do, thank you!!
@@maebellez 'Super interesting' that JB doesn't have a theory of gender?! It doesn't even have a definition and nobody knows what's being talked about. Would be ridiculous and pathetic if it weren't for the fact that this has real world consequences in which a lot of people are getting hurt, amongst other things
@@ebflegg She's what you might call "prize fat". There really isn't much to her if you aren't lulled into her house of smoke and mirrors. She's like a really amazing dingleberry just hanging onto the bottom of our culutre.
@@ebflegg hi. what lot of people are getting hurt, amongst other things, how? because of /due to what exactly?
@dannyarbre6280 kids who are harming their bodies irrevocably
Lesbians who are losing their culture
Parents losing their children snd being prosecuted
Women getting sexually assaulted and losing their privacy and protection
People being ostracised and hounded
Academics having their careers destroyed
Women having to compete against men in sports
Therapists and other professionals not being able to work ethically
Etc etc
I enjoyed this interview very much. I have also learned a lot from her detailed explanation of the complexity of different issues, instead of giving easy answers.
I find it very destructive hogwash.
there is no easier answer than "they just love to be wrong!"
Amazing person .... A true inspiration for thought ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
This is an amazing channel and kudos on the brilliant guests you have here, even the ones I don’t always agree with, but always thought provoking. This was a specially good interview. ❤
great guest, and people have already started crying in the comment section lol
Thanks!! :) :(
How could you not cry when you see someone talking such pseudo-intellectual nonsense? She even called Hamas and Hisbollah allies of the Left. There’s good reason why no serious philosopher takes her seriously.
@@lament22 People only cry over Butler’s pseudo-intellectual bs.
@funckmasta what specifically is pseudo-intellectual bs?
@@lament22 Among many other things, her statement that Hamas and Hisbollah are allies of the political left.
I disagreed with her on several points, but I refused to create my own echo chamber, and I appreciate you doing this.
This conversation was tough for me to listen to, but I think I needed it. I appreciate your range of guests.
Thanks so much.
May I ask why it was hard and also why it was needed?
@@Shmyrk hard because I don't I think she has good ideas. needed, if I'm going to stand up to these people, I need to know what they're saying
@@grahamjoss4643 That is very true..."Know thine enemy."
I have been so disgusted with the garbage Butler puts out I can't stomach listening to her.
Glad you could.
@@serpentines6356 care to elaborate what the garbage is?
Interview Shir Hever. He is an Israeli economist who is a coordinator at BDS and argues Israel has major internal social, economic, and military issues the media is not discussing.
Judith butler you will always be famous 🗣️🗣️
This conversation was illuminating, though I found myself wrestling with the indirect nature of many responses. I wonder if other listeners had a similar experience? As my first time engaging with Judith Butler's ideas and speaking at length (having only encountered their work peripherally before), I was particularly struck by their analysis of Trump's function for certain supporters - how he serves as a kind of figure for particular emotional and ideological investments in leadership, even as this creates tensions with fantastical and unrealistic views of what governance is built on or should maintain in a democratic framework.
Butler's framing of the Harris administration as the "anti-Trump" option was insightful, while acknowledging the need for further development on immigration and Middle East policy - this allowed for more personal understanding of some of my own thinking in this election.
While Butler's discussion touched on psychoanalysis, I found myself wanting more concrete examples of how psychoanalytic theory specifically informs their work on gender. This gap was particularly noticeable when considering theorists like Jean Laplanche, whose ideas about psychic asymmetry and translation seem potentially relevant to understanding gender and sexuality. What struck me was the absence of any discussion about the complex relationship between psychoanalysis as clinical practice versus its academic application. There's a tension here: psychoanalysis operates under specific therapeutic conditions for analysands, yet academics often appropriate these clinical insights for broader social theory and uses - sometimes in ways that might jeopardize its intent and drift from its original therapeutic context. This distinction, seems crucial to me, as an analysand myself for many years now, in which the ethics of how this kind of “practice” and its shared field is to be understood and applied beyond the clinic. None of this was really addressed in the conversation. Perhaps Butler explores this tension more thoroughly in their written work? Or it could just something I think of whenever academics speak about "psychoanalysis."
What struck others about the interplay between psychoanalytic thought and gender theory in this discussion? How did you find Butler's brief focus on melancholy and mourning relating to gender if at all? I know this was a casual conversation but I thought maybe more would be spoken about there.
Thank you for this!
Alex
26:00 From the little I know about Anthropology, the question of gender exists in different forms in different cultures. Even what a determined gender means differs. What it means to be a woman changes from culture to culture. I know of one case in which kids have two fathers (who play different roles) - one of them being a maternal uncle.
Adult human females, are women. Man and woman denote sex and stage of maturity in humans. What a woman is, does not vary across cultures like you claim. A human being an adult, post-puberty, is not a "social construct" but a physical reality.
That some cultures were deeply sexist and needed new boxes for people who deviated from sexist stereotypes is nothing to celebrate.
@@ambientjohnnyman and woman obviously denote way more than biology. they refer to social and cultural categories that are attached to the biological ones you’re describing
@@Graham-u2w No they don't. The regressive and sexist "trans" movement WANTS that to be the case, WANTS to change the definition from being neutral and rooted in physical reality, to referencing personality and adherence to sexist stereotypes, thus validating regressive attitudes and also perpetuating them. You lot are very backwards, yet so lack critical thinking skills or the ability to consider other perspectives that none of you can figure it out.
Of course some of you do come to see the nonsense, sexism, narcissism and regressive nature of the ideology and leave it behind, but those people are just treated like heretical apostates who should be shunned. Even detransitioners get labelled "transphobic" for speaking up and anything they say about their previously held beliefs called "bigoted".
I love Judith Butler. She's such a great and insightful person!
:)
they/them
@@dannydreadnought-xk4qx She said that she accept female pronouns for herself
@@123456789987o But that they prefer they/them.
@@dannydreadnought-xk4qx It/none.. Bullscheisse professor of actual womenhating ''clitical theowy'' .
Great interview!
1:15:00 This is the exact same argument made by people like Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, and others during the early years of Nazi regime. They said the exact same thing, like being Nazi doesn't mean you are supporting the policies of Hitler. I think Kellner was didn't even join the Nazi party formally and claimed he was witness to the horrors. I think Hans Scholl and white rose movement was the only voice that resisted the Nazism in Germany, while other intellectuals who were very similar to Judith in their tone and not formal members were also complicit. Though, none of them faced any consequences. Its so astounding how Zionism has rotted the brains of everyone. Creating ethnic apartheid states will lead to fascism no matter how you go about doing it. I love what Judith has written in its context, but her claiming that she hasn't ever heard Gaza is concentration camp is a fine lie. She knows what Israel is doing is a genocide and there will be fallout from this. She is walking a fine line where she says she herself isn't a Zionist and also claims Zionism isn't bad only Netanheyu is. This is a subtle way of supporting the genocide without explicitly saying you support it. War crimes against the Palestinian didn't start in October. its over 75 years old. The original Nakba happened just before the establishment of Israel.
I think we should submit Judith butler and her statement to the accountability archive as well.
i don’t think that’s what she’s saying at all, mainly because she has explicitly written about how ethnostates rely on violence (and gave israel as the main example) and cannot be sustained without that. she has quite clearly expressed opposition to israel in all her work. she never said “zionism isn’t bad only netanyahu is,” as you’ve seemed to hear, merely that reducing zionism as an idea to netanyahu’s government is incredibly reductive and unhelpful.
i do think however, if you are taking a lifelong opponent of israel in action and words to be a zionist because you heard a phrase in an interview and assumed it meant something else, you are not a serious person. she literally said israel’s actions were genocidal in this interview. would highly recommend actually reading what they have to say about israel instead of basing your opinion off a 10 minute interview segment
rotten brains? there is a projection if I ever read one
Nonsense.
It's always been about Islam. Your ignorance is not an excuse for your hatred.
@@itsbenbitch14 Zionism is inherently colonial and fascist. She was mad supporter of Israel and only changed her tone recently. She is doing exact same thing as Ethan Klein, saying look I said it's a genocide what more do you want. There are children being shredded while she is giving a lip. I don't know if you know anything about the Holocaust but there were people like this who made it happen.
@MrAbuYaz You're literally a crystal fascist. Gtfo
If you hate a person this wise an thoughtful with a beautiful laugh maybe you should wonder if you maybe the bad person.
really, I think she is a weasel, and full of malice.
I really think that Butler’s ethical turn come at the expense of the radical ontological and epistemological critique that once set her apart.
💯💯💯💯 it sucks, she’s so smart but willing to kowtow
I liked this interview. Great job!
i REALLY appreciate Judith's approach to discussions; for as educated & practiced as she is, she comes across SO down-to-earth. almost as soon as i have a question, she seems to already queueueueueue up an answer, or a revision to the question to better answer it. no shame, no brow-beating, but this open-invitation to just ASK.
it seems the failure to question or the lack of curiosity is what gives way to hateful ideologies, and those who'd weaponise them.
Why is it that you believe females do not deserve single-sex spaces or single-sex activities?
Explain why such blatant intolerance of female rights and protections, the notion that female boundaries should not be accepted or respected, is a morally justifiable position.
@@ambientjohnny - there is nothing in my comment that provided any sort of window for you to introduce this question directed at me. please feel free to explain why these questions are at the forefront of your mind.
"I think psycho analysis can be a form of cultural criticism" -- Butler has a level of self control and patience which could transmute iceburgs to oceans.
I've watched this interview twice. The second time was an accident, but I still enjoyed it.
THEY ARE GREAT I LOVE THEM JUDITH
I just won't cry "COME TO BRAZIL" like it's traditional of my people online to do so because
last time we didn't treat Butler so goodly...
Been getting recommended videos from this channel and watching and enjoying the ones with people I knew before but I made the unfortunate mistake o looking who this Robinson guy is and run into his resume and I never felt this much unaccomplished before. Great interviews btw, keep them coming!
This is excellent.
I'm glad you're liking it!
Owen Jones is touring America and interviewing Trump voters. He's just dropped a video and honestly it's absolutely wild. The disconnect between what Trump says, and how they describe him is simply mind blowing. Well worth checking out.
Owen Jones is a Far Right MI6 controlled opposition
Yeap. Lost me @ 20:00min. To say an accomplished male athlete has less testosterone than a female athlete is wild. Giving controls, saying same age, competing in the same sport, without being a biologist or doctor, I dare say if that does happen it’s extremely rare. To make a generalization like that, is why people have issue with this type of thinking. That is an outlier and not a biological norm. Also, hermaphroditism is extremely rare. I don’t care what you want to call yourself. I don’t believe in discrimination or violence towards people for any reason. But, when you bring sports into conversation there a distinct reality we must recognize. I’m 5’9, almost 39. I’ll never be an NBA player. If you want to compete in sports, compete within your biological sex and competitive groups. Life isn’t fair. Get over it. As someone who spends too much time thinking sometimes. In my perspective, these discussions come from people spending too much time thinking and talking. Some of us don’t have that luxury.
There is no overlap between male and female test levels. Lowest T male has more than the highest T female. So just more lies.
Yes. She is relativizing the biological sex and her arguments are rare mutations. It seems a bit intellectually dishonest. She wants to make the case for gender as a relevant term, but it isn't and shouldn't be. Wherever it is relevant, the term sex is absolutely serving the purpose. And using the term gender when talking about violence toward women for example can lead to skewed statistics when it comes to male violence against women and girls. So it is important for the law to not do that, and she is. Also the way she characterised the gender critical feminists is unfair, makes me think she is making a fallacy on purpose. Same with taking de Bovoir quote out of context and inventing the meaning to include the "choice" of fulfilling the gender role.
robinson should have judith and norman finkelstein in the same room lets work it out on the remix
@@eleneakh 😂😂😂
@eleneakh
YES, have the two schizophrenic, islam AND trans friendly, ''tolerant'' '''''thinkers'''''( didn't have enough quotation marks for that one) in a room and be the least representative members of their tribe. ;)
I wander how Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics would look at the field of gender, since you have a section on language and gender. Maybe something that can be explored in the future.
33:15 "who is benefitting from this?"
This is the central question, which cannot be understood without diving into the political economy of society. As important as issues of gender, race, and other identities are - their isolated analysis can only tell us how they operate. It doesn't tell us why they operate that way.
Butler replied that she is not opposed to questions of "who benefits?", but that these can skew our analyis. In fact, while It's important to look into questions of gender, race, etc, their operation cannot be understood without understanding the political economy and capitalism (i.e., who benefits)
I'm always intrigued when people who are "not experts" on such subjects are able to pinpoint these central questions. It seems as though central questions are sometimes sidelined by mainstream academia. Therefore, the "non-experts", like you claimed yourself to be, can still ask these questions while to the "academics", these do not occur.
Anyway, I enjoy your interviews. I was introduced to your channel through interviews of Norman Finkelstein. Good inputs in this interview as well. Cheers!
I have a curiosity, why is the gender issue so pressing? As to overshadow other, more critical issues that we're dealing with at the moment?
When societies become stressed and people become isolated and frustrated, it becomes very seductive to have people even less powerful than oneself as a scapegoat so that the establishment can trundle along a little bit more.
It’s at the heart of our identity
Easy scapegoat, religious intersections, deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.
that’s why butler had moved away from gender largely, it’s more like when you have a musical guest and they sing their most popular song. she’s been much more concerned with broader issues recently, just not as well known for that
@@soymoder
''deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.''
Which is why Butler commercially exploited them by writing books full of non declarative, unfalsifiable ''statements'' for them. :D
I want to start off by saying that I really do like this channel so far, and have enjoyed the interviews I've listened to. That said, over an hour in to this one, and I have found the discussion so far to disappointingly superficial. On the occasion that the conversation threatened to stray into interesting territory where the guest's ideas might be explored and explicated, Butler came across as evasive and reluctant to say much of anything, and the host really didn't push back.
Judith Butler is one of the most influential and controversial living philosophers/academics out there, and her ideas and approach have certainly been an influence on and inspiration to many. So it's disappointing l that the discussion here really only danced vaguely close to concepts and ideas she puts forward in her work. To be honest I'm not sure much of anything has been said beyond quite banal discussions of politics that you could hear between any undergrads, plus, what, the insight that psychoanalysis is expensive?
I'll admit, I don't understand Butler, or her work, at all. But I'm not arrogant enough to assume that means there isn't value there, it's a shame that a couple of times, when she was asked on some specifics her answer was basically "well, that's very complicated", and then moved on. In Butler's writings and other interviews, it often feels like she takes great pains to avoid concretely saying anything at all, and instead uses a lot of verbiage to produce something so impenetrable it makes up for its own lack of substance. I'm open to the idea that I'm just too ignorant/too much of a dumbass to "get it". But it's a shame that seems to be replicated in her interviews also, where circumlocutions and nigglings over terminology and peripheral details eat up the time and the subject gets lost. Her interview with Novara media was similarly frustrating
There also seems to be some fairly fast and loose of language here too. An hour in and it's really not entirely clear to a listener what it means to describe a politician as "against gender". And that allows certain conflations that aren't justified or even acknowledged (at least, not here). If a politician who is "anti gender" is someone against trans rights, in favor of repression of what are often called gender nonconforming people and/or behaviours, etc., why does it follow from that that "gender" in the sense of gender equality (or, really, women's liberation, which is what is implied here) is inherently a part of that attack? I mean, other than that you can construct your phrasing so that they use the same word if you want to... I mean sure, it's generally true that reactionary forces in society and politics are both anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman, for obvious reasons, but that in and of itself isn't a particularly interesting observation, and it feels like Butler is making a much deeper and grander claim (but which, here, isn't at all justified, or interrogated, or even really explained). So as an answer to the question it seems like something between a cop-out and wordplay
Furthermore, even the term, "anti-gender" which she uses throughout the interview, is never explained. She seems to be using it as a substitute for what people on the right refer to as "anti gender ideology", but why, and what does she mean by it (other than as a little rhetorical flourish to say "actually, nuh-uh, it's *you* who's the ideologue", but I assume it's probably more than that?). Like take an Orban or even moreso a Putin, or even a garden variety religious republican; their whole thing is about men being men, and women being women (that is to say, strong social pressure and even coercion both legal and extrajudicial to maintain strict traditional gender roles). So what is the meaning behind using the term "anti-gender" to describe this, in what sense _is_ that "anti-gender", and what even is meant by "gender" there. I'm entirely open to the idea that Butler has something unique to say about that that would be thought provoking or indeed insightful. But we just didn't get any of that here.
I'll still be watching this channel, that all said. Perhaps you might get a chance to get Butler back on, and actually prod her a little to explain some of her ideas, even if her go-to answer always seems to be "well, that's really complicated". Sure, I'm sure it is, but maybe we could try to at least start to go into it somewhat? It comes across like a defense mechanism to me; Judith, could we maybe take just a little peek at the emperor's gown please? For all I know, it really is glorious (after all, emperors in reality, unlike fables, rarely do wander around in the buff 😄)
Butler did less dancing than this comment.
@@soymoder feel free to outline where if you think I've been indirect or cagey, I don't think I was
@@soymoder or if you just meant "the comment is long" then, ok, guilty as charged I suppose. This is a philosophy channel though, I imagine it's allowed 🙃
thanks erhardt and judith!
Sure!
I see the humanities lead to Continental Philosophy, and the natural sciences lead to Analytical Philosophy, honestly makes sense, if the dialectic is anything, it's a scambling machine, refuses to let anything be self stable and linear in progress.
42:35 I mean there is rapid onset gender dysphoria or maybe there isn't but it sure is being treated as if it existed when girls in their youth suddenly arrive with such conclusions.
Great guest, and likely the most well dressed podcaster of our time. You’re killing it, my brother. ❤u
I'll admit I am fairly new to the whole academic body of work in terms of culture studies so pls don't crucify me for saying this. But when reading Adorno I can't help but feel it is so applicable to the modern right. Enlightenment turned against the human Spirit feels like such an apt description of this crazy right wing way of thinking. The thrill comes from the legitimized violence, aimed at the eradication of human interference. Like in the Odyssey myth, where he ties himself to the mast and tells his crew to blindfold themselves and plug their ears. Blind and deaf obedience to the hero leader who is bound by destiny on a sacred mission. Eventually, this anti-humanity is aimed at things like art, philosophy, etc., since every human aspect must be eradicated in order to achieve the goal of perfect reason. That is where things spiral out of control. Then, the crazier the better, any resistance, all failures, will only reinforces the myth that humanity is the problem.
We see this reflected in the new online media. Consuming media is taking on extreme forms. It is pretty normal for people to sit on a sofa with the tv on, while they are scrolling through instagram. It is ridiculously passivizing, there is no engagement, there is no thinking, and it is all the same across all platforms. Only the most superficial elements remain. Endless and mindless consumption of cat videos, outrage, memes, porn, etc. It constricts people's ability to think and conceive. Like many people today don't even know the concept of long form music because they only know about singles and playlists, and now there are even people starting to learn that music from memes can actually be entire songs. The only thrill that comes out of this is the illusion of liberation. Thousands of hours of content get uploaded every second, you can access the entire world of knowledge. completely free to look up anything you want, etc. But in reality most of what you watch is heavily curated by algorithms, and content creators, for purely economic reasons.
This is the same with trump, and why he thrives so incredibly well in this new online environment. They are eating cats and dogs is a meme format, the J6 comity is long and boring and far too complicated. He promises the illusion of liberation, from the deep state, the woke, the illegals, etc. That is why he 'speaks to them', because they can only conceive of the memes, not the long form anymore. In fact, the long form is antagonistic, it is uncomfortable, it contradicts the myth of 'how things actually are' and most therefor be eradicated.
The notorious JB!
!
?
34:10 perhaps for more nuance here, apart from what was mentioned, on a local level this division is deeply tied to self-identity and relationship dynamics, where individuals adopt certain gendered roles within social units that shape their interactions and goals. Additionally, gender differences play also a role in sexual desire, where attraction is often fueled by how closely individuals align with idealized gender representations. Of course, this is not to say that these may be very well external influences of the power structure, such as societal discourses and commercial interests, that shape our understanding of gender-specific behaviors (e.g., beauty standards for women). Ultimately, this division could reflect both a natural tendency based on our perceptions of "differences" historized reinforced by rationalization of underlying power dynamics within gender roles.
1:03:20 Being free to hate is important because who decides? Sure we should socially shun it but it's not for winner-take-all internet platforms let alone the state to decide.
Also fascism does not come from fascist passions of course. Let's leave the self flagellation with Saint Augustine's branches of Christianity.
Watta discussion Man!!
Why does no one who interviews Judith Butler challenge her in any serious way? They never seem to understand the arguments against her ideas on gender and sex, and she ends up saying the same incoherent things every time while the interviewer nods their head in agreement. It is so infuriating. Listen to Kathleen Stock or Holly Lawford-Smith or Alex Byrne to understand how to ask her serious questions. MANY people who disagree with her are not in the least bit right wing. If you believe that, you have no idea who her critics are.
Why do you care about gender dont you have more pressing shit to worry about?
Saving this to look these ppl up
I suspect it’s a political correctness outgoings
Kathleen Stock is an absolute joker, and whatever Butler lacks in clarity and/or coherence, Stock exceeds mightily in ignorance and sheer sloppiness/laziness. I'll check out the other two names though
@@Muzikman127 examples? Butler is an intelectual poser, incoherenct and contradictory in her ideas and acts...
He mirrors the frustration of the disenfranchised class and gives them a strong emotional freedom to express their rage. I shudder to imagine what 4 more years of a Trump "witches brew" will bring.
THE AGNER OF POWER LOST WHAT IS IMPORTAN IS BEYOND THE MATERIAL MARXIST FIGHT
Maybe, but do you figure it is systemically possible enfranchise people under the current system of the US? I ask because I'm not convinced regarding my own country of Norway, that the existing system is fit to actually face the future without some crisis to shake things up. I'm not at all interested in right wing, but when politicians are so comfortable achieving basically nothing, and just protecting the status quo that is a slow extraction of resources from the many to the few, how do we actually get anything done? I don't know that voting is sufficient either, the extracting class has deep influence over the media, and thus they can easily divert meaningful movements, and have us bickering about minute details in our policies, rather than act and course correct as needed.
More like a team to pick. Hard to say he mirrors any frustrations when all that manifests from his and his followers doings is striving toward implementing as many social dividers as possible. Sure this country has problems but it is a silly oversimplification to then come to conclusion that trump was inevitable then due to the issues present. Americans have it easy so they pick a candidate that in no way will benefit their living and pick the whacky guy, and the popular vote is so easily ignored in favor of an unelected electoral college is what led to trump in my opinion
@@Late_not_on_time I think you underestimate how seductive demagogues throughout history are for isolated frustrated powerless people who are desperate for simple narratives to explain their misery. The vast majority of trump supporters are extremely isolated, stressed and disenfranchised people who want all the benefits of community and culture without actually participating in it within the context of their own neighborhoods and communities. They’ve retreated into their homes and jobs and in some cases churches but even most church going community belonging/participating people have little or no interest in the petty narratives of trump.
Both candidates are absolutely shameful and grossly unfit for office. I will vote for the platform that best represents my values.
and just FYI, I wouldn't want to be president for the greatest treasure on earth. Whoever is in office for the next four years is going to bear the blame when everything comes unraveled.
Judith Butler wrote this lol: "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."
That's a perfectly understandable and grammatically sound sentence. This is a ChatGPT summary:
The shift from a structuralist view, where capital is seen as uniformly shaping social relations, to a hegemonic view, where power is seen as flexible and reconfigurable, introduced a focus on temporality in structural theory. This change moved away from Althusser’s idea of fixed structures, highlighting instead the contingent and adaptable nature of hegemony, where power is continuously reshaped through specific, evolving strategies and sites of influence.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@shouter1979😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
She's one of the worst writers ever. It's no secret.
@@shouter1979It's sad when ChatGPT writes better than a human with a PhD.
Tricked me! I thought that was Dawkins for a brief moment.
The strange thing is that even if we assume that the Jews (Europeans) who are now in Palestine are Semites and ignore all other opinions. It is known that the term anti-Semitism came as a result of their persecution in Europe. And it is known that Europe persecuted only the Jews and not the other Semites (Arabs). The question is why did they use the term anti-Semitism instead of the term anti-Judaism, which is more accurate!!! Perhaps Sejer will be drawn to researching the beliefs of the Jews!!!! Perhaps the results will be shocking😅😅😅
Who are the other people apart from female to get pregnant?
Trans men with wombs for example
I thought she said “women” and then figured “other people” would be “girls”. (But I was also initially confused by her wording and had to figure it out.)
@@chucknorris7448 huh, I answered this question, but the TH-cam auto censor has removed my answer. I'll try again: the answer would be trans men and non binary people with the capability of getting pregnant. It's a small group, but they exist 🙃
@@chucknorris7448 Trans men
@@Muzikman127 Why are you listing "gender identities" when the op was specifically referencing sex? "non-binary" is not a sex, and "trans men" are female so not separate from other females at all as you have so ridiculously suggested.
Request: Interview Todd McGowan!
The Feminist Front in Brazil ,studying Judith Buttlers Work
An eye Open experience
Judith seemed to enjoy pretending like she didn’t understand your questions and made moments unnecessarily defensive and awkward. In this environment with so much hate and misunderstanding around gender it would’ve been great for this prominent thinker to be a little more generous and warm but I guess she’s sick of talking about it after decades.
I suspect part of it is because one of the goals of post-structuralist philosophy is to challenge our default assumptions about what is normal. A lot of those default assumptions are the kinds of things that get coded into the premise of a question, rather than being the subject of the question itself. It's the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" problem: sometimes the best answer to the question is to challenge the question.
In some cases, I suspect Butler's understanding of gender is so radically different that they *genuinely* didn't think the questions as posed made sense.
@@deadeaded"they" *she
@@deadeaded perhaps, but if that is the case, it would still be nice not to be so very cagey as to what her understanding of gender actually is then.
@@deadeaded And also, sometimes it wasn't that, sometimes the nitpicking really was exactly that. "We come from a culture where gender traditionally has been painted as being a simple binary, why do you think that is, where does that come from in your view?" (paraphrase) is not a tricky question to process. And as one of the leading and most prominent theorists/writers on gender and society, it's much more interesting to at least begin to answer that question, than to niggle around "but what society are we even in, maaan? What even is society, maaan? What do you mean "traditional"?", oh come on!
I know that's a very uncharitable phrasing of it, but it is basically how she engaged with the questions. Like you know what is being asked Judith, it's a jumping off point to discuss what gender is and how it operates, is it really necessary to be shitty about it to a well-meaning interviewer 😅
Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair there, but it did feel a lot like this sometimes, lots of niggling as a sort of offensive defensiveness
@@quinnparle4132 She is the artful dodger. The woman who never grew up turned angry at all of society. It's petulant and gross.
Great, now talk to Nancy Fraser and see what happens. Cheers.
If liberation is liberation do the means matter when you feel everything is on the line?
Read her book on non-violent resistance. The really excellent one everyone ignores.
Thanks for showing us the perspective of someone suffering from California normative behavior.
@@lockwood1976 California normative behaviour actually made me laugh out loud.
Wow, how the left sees the right: ‘they want to be free to hate’. The same way you now realize that the right doesn’t believe what Trump says literally, can’t you also see that it doesn’t have anything to do with hate? The left WANTS to believe the right ‘hates’, because it means the left can believe it is on the ‘side of angels’.
It’s really really weird to think the other side ‘wants to hate’. They want to be free, period. That includes the freedom to say things that are uncomfortable and cause others to feel things they might not like. If you cannot understand that that is what freedom is, then I suppose nothing can make you understand.
Suppose my own personal freedoms would oblige it: if I were to keep you trapped in a room for three days without your consent, would you have the right to be upset with me for causing you to "feel things that you might not like"? Would you think that I "hate" you?
To the point: your notion of freedom seems incredibly self-centered.
@ I don’t follow what locking people up for three days has to do with what the left or the right thinks. As for freedom, it doesn’t have anything to do with self centeredness. People must be able to speak their minds. To call bullshit on the dogmas, to be able to speak truth to power. That is freedom.
You'd be amazed at what the right thinks of the left, I don't think it's much more positive. And I don't believe that everyone who holds right wing beliefs holds those beliefs because they are hateful or something but I do think it's a bit true that the more right wing you consciously are, like someone who considers themselves far right, probably does hold a lot of hateful beliefs and falls back onto conservatism/right wing values as a way to be uncritical or to justify said beliefs. And considering most right wing beliefs are exclusionary.. to hold that type of belief in my opinion is to have some implicit hate that you haven't dealt with
@@ktk44man it’s quite dangerous, and a bit silly really to think people who do not see things the way you see them are hateful, or desiring to hate. Dangerous because it reinforces the idea in you that you yourself are ‘good’ or ‘loving’ by contrast. A bit silly, because it’s pretty silly to think all those people ‘must be wrong’, because they see things not your way. Who would flatter themselves that much?
And ‘he did it too’ is not an argument, for this speaker to seriously say what she says about ‘those people wanting to hate’. That is the easiest, most self congratulatory way possible to see things.
@@ktk44man that’s the point really, you see everything in people that do not agree with your worldview as some form of hate. I know that that rethoric has been spewed endlessly, but it is nonsense. There is no ‘desire to hate’ or ‘implicit hate’. You are really fooling yourself if you buy into that. There are lots of reasons why democrats have lost, lots of reasons why people voted for Trump, but it has zero to do with hate. It has to do with what the Democrats stand for these days, the direction they seem to want to go in. You call it inclusion, except it isn’t inclusive, it is only inclusive of the people that agree and align with the crazy.
I haven't watched this yet, but I must say. Trans women are beautiful and inspiring. The debate over them is toxic and dumb imho
"Trans women are beautiful and inspiring" is just another platitude. Objectively some of them are indeed "beautiful" after many cosmetic procedures. But there is absolutely nothing inspiring about having gender dysmorphia anymore than it's inspiring that my son currently has strep throat
:x
Really? Is Judith actually trans, or just a non-feminine woman?
@@johnbanach3875 You just became toxic and dumb
They can be all of those things and society still have a healthy debate. They key is isolating the bigots from the advocates.
The advocates are usually ppl who are ALSO from marginalized groups & want Trans rights while expressing legitimate concerns & recognizing that before performing Womanhood TransFems were males who have approached Women's space with many demands, a GREAT degree of entitlement & little consideration of impact & outcome towards women
I,m 10min in and nothing yet at all related to the videos given description.
I disagree with the term "fascist passions." These aren't passions that lead inherently and essentially and undisputably to fascism, these are passions that have merely been being channelled towards fascism as a specific political form in the last couple of hundred years because of fascism's unique explosiveness and potency in countering western constitutional democracy under which they have been seriously suppressed, both politically and culturally. I think it's "misguided" to NOT recognise this as a failing inherent to the system (of liberal democracy, both political and moral) and merely wish for the blissful ignorance of the system to be preserved for a little while longer. While many of these passions are certainly being stirred up by class differences exacerbating racial tensions etc. that is not the whole picture. We live perhaps locked inside our own present-moment binary on this issue - it's sort of agreed upon in our collective consciousness that hateful and ignorant are adjectives that go together, while we would collocate enlightenment probably with something like empathy or tolerance. But this is a very limited and limiting view. These cthonic passions need channelling, channelling that isn't necessarily pro-social, but that likewise doesn't lead to explosions of ignorance that debase us as a culture (or cultures), that destroy and level complexity. Some would argue we already do channel them through art, but even a cursory overview of contemporary art shows a lasting obsession with the value of pro-social instincts and a tendency to treat the cthonic either as a tragedy that must be avoided or as something we only indulge in superficially and "for fun". We are incredibly afraid to really delve into "the heart of darkness," unless we wield some torch of goodness against it. This is the prevailing mood of our culture to a substantial degree. And it's the reason why being "free to hate" really does offer such a strong sense of power, liberation, and transgression to those on the right. Currently the only somewhat entrenched medium through which one can channel these passions in their full force is the alt right, which makes the alt right attractive to vast numbers of people.
On the other hand, I am seriously tired of terms such as "vulnerable" and "community" when referring to minorities. Although they technically might be correct and might appeal to them, they almost reify their status as victims within the cultural consciousness. Seems to me that the attempts to steer the culture away from "wickedness" in part also result in these groups being MORE exposed to violence and (more importantly) oppression, and less prepared to form an actual independent self-defence. The fascists are composed of able-bodied young men who are ready to commit violence. Neither the left nor the minorities (not to equate the two) have an adequate response to that that doesn't rely on the power of the State which has always been a fickle ally anyway. And on top of that, we increasingly conceive of ourselves as a group that reacts rather than a group that influences and leads change. Of course, this ties back to class and oppression, but actually, the vast majority of those on the right are also oppressed under class and yet that doesn't stop them from having that fervour and fire of someone about to conquer the world, no matter how much their politics is still based on resentment and a sense of victimhood.
Can anyone speak to the correctness or otherwise of this claim at 20:45? I had understood that, excepting cases of endocrinological abnormality, the lowest levels of testosterone in biological males exceeded the highest levels in biological females. Is this not so?
It is so, there is no overlap.
this is not true - im a researcher w/ a background in neuroendocrinology. the distribution of testosterone lvls between those assigned male at birth and those assigned female at birth are overlapping, part of why "sex" is a much more complex term in biology than it is in colloquial discourse
@@kamrynduplessis1997 Stop LYING. There is no overlap whatsoever between male and female testosterone levels. The lowest T level male has higher T than the highest level female.
The fact that you are even writing "assigned" as if what sex a person is wasn't a matter of objective fact just underlines how disingenuous you are.
41:30 There's the issue that you might be right happy with your sex but if people bring it up you do start wasting your time on investigating a part of your identity that is probably rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Unless there really is nothing left for people to do and we are at the end of history. Of course it's a really important issue to some people regardless and so I tend to say we should be mindful of the downsides of representation too like maybe that's not the best approach to legislative improvements for those people.
I was ready to like her and engage in her ideas but why is she so slippery on her theory snd current understanding of gender? If she wrote a book about it recently, she must have a working definiton to offer from which to start.
i think she said it when she said that she wants to keep things open to discussion. i think as time as gone on she probably has differing definitions of gender, but i think to mistake a philosopher’s idea of gender as the only idea people adopt as if they’ve cracked the only code isn’t the best way to go about it, and i think that’s what she’s talking about here.
@@sateleim that´s true. 🙏 I also honour that she admits that she doesn´t know (right now), or is changing her mind, or something like that. I remember coming across such an admition while studying, one of my academic heroes at Harvard actually published something like "I love this line of poetry but I don´t know what it means". I was actually so struck by this humble admition that I wrote to him -- and he even replied! Humility is definitely a virtue, and the courage to say that, actually, yes, I am also just human and am allowed to change my mind.
judith butler ❤
I was a Sociology student in the 80s in Australia, an absolute eye opener at the time. Thank you, Judith Butler, for making the terms gender and sex more complicated, it is always a breath of fresh air to listen to you!
Butler is disappointing. She's prolific scholar but you can see her being indecisive, almost apologetic, when it comes to Israel. You can't solely blame Netanyahu for the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine. Majority of the Israeli society endorses and supports the state's genocide of Palestinians.
Again, profound disappointment to see butler being ambiguous and dithering in her condemnation of Israel's genocidal onslaught
How is it a genocide?
@@SvenErik_Lindstrom3 this is from today, November 14: "UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war"
They are not actually, they are part of Jewish voice for peace and have written extensively on the matter and the long and slow violence that Palestinians have had to suffer for ages. They are just speaking to the reality of the jewish community in America where over half identify as zionist, mostly because that became the norm over time, but only a small percent of them belief Jews are superior to non-jews or palestinians for that matter. They speak to the contradictions that exist within the American-Jewish community of the belief of zionism as a form of safety for jewish people and the reality of zionism as a colonial and oppressive ideology for Palestinians. It is actually a tactic to deconstruct this web of contradictions and often fear-based belief.
True, anti-Zionism doesn’t necessarily mean anti-Semitism, just as anti-immigration doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Latino sentiment, pro-policing doesn’t inherently mean anti-Black, and pro-life advocacy doesn’t necessarily equate to being anti-woman. Similarly, support for traditional gender roles isn’t inherently anti-transgender, and opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t necessarily anti-LGBTQ. Just as there is a nuanced distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, similar distinctions should be made in these other topics as well. If we want to be fair and rational, it’s essential to recognize these nuances across all areas of discourse. However, if one is unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt and good-faith understanding to others, it may be unrealistic to expect that same consideration in return.
Well said
So, what is your stance on Israel then?
Do you support Israels right to exist, and destroy it's enemies who want to destroy them?
Do you recognize there are only two s*x*s/genders?
I’ll bite. How is being anti gay marriage not anti gay? Or how is being anti equal rights for LGBTQ not also anti LGBTQ?
No thanks, I don't care to have a conversation on TH-cam about this topic with someone who has already misquoted me. I didn't say that being anti-equal rights for LGBTQ is not also anti-LGBTQ. Clearly, you already misinterpreted what I said, which a problem. If you couldn't understand my original comment, what hope is there for a reasonable, open-minded conversation.
@@lindaberard5065 Explain how the "trans" movement is not anti-gay itself, with all the males who deny being homosexual due to their "gender identity", ie claiming that they are not gay but heterosexual because they are "trans women" attracted to men. They are literally same-sex attracted aka gay, but reject this reality and claim to be heterosexual. Similarly you have completely heterosexual males who claim to be "trans lesbians", their "gender identity" being "trans women" and attracted to females - males attracted to females claiming to be "lesbians"... Have you seriously never thought of those aspects?
I guess I’m in the privileged position of not really understanding what much of the gender issue is about but I do appreciate, and have done for a couple of decades (since before the current culture war), Butler’s serious and empathetic approach to ethical issues
So those men who can’t make the men’s Olympic team, can take some hormones and play on the women’s team. It is neither coherent nor workable. But for Butler, equity and inclusion are imperative, in any and all domains of life. But competitive sports are anything but equal and inclusive, and that indeed is the point.
Why is it that you believe females do not deserve single-sex spaces or single-sex activities?
Explain why such blatant intolerance of female rights and protections, the notion that female boundaries should not be accepted or respected, is a morally justifiable position.
Oh Judith. I wish I agreed with you on more than three things. I so badly want to.
Why?
@TDavies-o9w Because I like her and because I want "The Left" to agree broadly. Also I think she has that feeling Kurt Cobain had when he was forced to play Smells Like Teen Spirit into infinity and rednecks started liking it. If we're not careful she may start self-harming.
Trump is expressing freedom of speech just like this lady is. Name calling doesn't carry weight anymore, like the boy who cried wolf. Trump followed thru everything that he promised in his term in 2016. Where's the lying part? She has a lot of hate, envy & bitterness. Apologies for the name-calling response.
I don’t trust these some of these random peoples ideas that came up last few decades I trust beautiful historic paintings and sculpture and literature and arts of men and women.
She's beautiful. It's a shame people like her don't "run' the world
You used the wrong pronoun
@@peteunderdown6889😂
They's beautiful. It's a shame people like them don't "run" the world.
Why indeed people believe falsehoods, Judith? For instance about sex, biology, sex differences....I have no idea.
What......hatred of education? Please......200 million Americans. Is she in her right mind?
the interviewer looks so exotic, straight from the 19th century
As a scholar of Husserl it blows my mind how "analytic philosophers" are oblivious of his work and it's impact on the 20th century - both "continental" and "analytic" philosophy. And it blows my mind regarding the lack of curiosity of analytic types. I've read every single analytic philosopher of note - from Frege to Kit Fine. And then I meet an analytic and they giggle at the very name of Levinas, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida - the indoctrination in hard core analytic programs is no joke.
Otherwise good stuff as always.
Great example of intelligence not equalling wisdom
Agree
A good example of a noxious small l liberal
And what would be examples of (lack of) "wisdom", according to you?
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Her inability/ unwillingness to engage with ANY factual definitions, the vague language she uses to baffle easily impressed morons and her lack of fluency when speaking opposed to her ''prolific'' writing are all BIG , BIG red flags.
You're welcome.
@@rocksparadoxGiven that her work deals significantly in presentation, representation, and understanding, are you sure you're just not just refusing to engage with ideas outside of the objective? There's a place for that, for those of us who aren't terrified of ideas outside of the mainstream.
I've always liked Mr Butler. He's a brilliant speaker and fights hard for women's rights.
My man! Lol
Same...ROFLMAO
I cannot possibly be the only person who found the schools of philosophy chat a distraction, and time that could have been better used, can I?
Brilliant thinker
Thanks for watching!
lol- ok yeah Epistemologically this is a reversion to classical Liberalism. Gee thx profound insights lol
A brilliant woman of both conscience and intellect.
Wrong on all counts.
Many good points...but
One stops believing in God, one starts believing in everything. GK Chesterton
Good thing I never started in the first place then
14:37 - She does not shares her current theory of gender.
What value does this woman bring to society? Whose life has she made better? What has she done for anyone that is worth paying for?
One of the most important philosophers of our time, shifted the foundations of an entire field of study and practice, worth far more than anything money can buy, generally only understood by people who study, vilified by the ignorant.
Isn’t it interesting how Robinson uses this kind of tactic to avoid making a comment that reflects his own view point by resorting to MY FRIEND OR MY PARENTS OR A TEACHER OF MINE OR WHOEVER said THIS OR THAT …
Hello, Mr. Erhardt. This is a fascinating interview. It seems like it was also a difficult interview, because gender philosophy is slippery and because Butler often responded defensively. Thank you for hearing her out: I think she was not targeting you, but rather that she was used to protecting herself against these same questions being asked in bad faith. I am a transgender woman, and I appreciate that you were willing to take the time to listen to Butler and to investigate the philosophy of gender.
I have a personal theory of gender based in phenomenology. Jacques Lacan posits that one of the ways we humans form our identity is in the mirror stage -- when our mother (or parent, more broadly) is holding us as an infant, and we see ourself in her (their) arms. At this moment, we realize we are a separate, whole person. This is how I understand it. It is an essentially phenomenological movement: incorporating an external thing (the reflected image) into our own self. I posit that we form our identity through visual reflections continually across our lives. My experience of gender dysphoria when I was trying to live as a man, was that I saw someone else when I looked in the mirror. I did not see myself; I saw a stranger. It is a very saddening feeling to go through life with. We can extend the idea of reflection to other images we project which are not essentially visual, like our speech and our writing. Probably this sounds a lot to you like the performative theory of gender, and maybe it is just that. But to me, I feel like it goes a step further than mere performativity. To say that performance of a gender makes one an instantiation of the platonic ideal of that gender, feels vacuous to me; it cheapens gender and human identity more broadly. I would say that gender is latent in us, and we reveal it through both our deliberate and our accidental performances of gender. I would also go further, to flip the platonic instantiation on its head: the ideal is derived from the many instantiations, not the other way around. Ideal forms are immanent on their preexisting instantiations.
I thought maybe you'd find this interesting. Have a good day!
How are men "supposed" to act think or feel?
@ambientjohnny Uhm, well I think in an ideal world men ought to behave ethically, like people of any gender. To the extent that humans can control our thoughts, I also think that it is ideal to not fixate on unethical or harmful lines of thought. Feelings are pretty much entirely involuntary, in my experience: so, I don't feel comfortable making any proscriptive or prescriptive statement there.
I wonder if you're referencing or thinking about male social norms, like bravery or stoicism. I am of the opinion that gender-coded traits like these are ethically neutral, and we ought to judge people exhibiting them by how they employ the traits, not by which traits they feel comfortable with. Sometimes masculinity is wielded in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, and sometimes it's just secondary to other considerations. the same could be said of femininity, and of androgyny.
so, i think we all are "supposed" to act ethically, think responsibly, and feel honestly. i am sorry if i implied something more draconian.
@@dimimegesis No, "trans" ideology posits that an adult male can "not feel like a man" (and a pre-pubescent male can "not feel like a boy") - so what are these feelings they supposedly have which are out of bounds for boys/men?
So, If there is no correct way of being a man or a woman (or boy/girl), then how can there be a "mismatch" between what they are and how they feel?
@@ambientjohnny Hello again, @ambientjohnny.
I think that your first paragraph makes false assertions. I have never heard a transgender person say that "an adult male can 'not feel like a man'" in the proscriptive, prohibitory sense of 'cannot.' I was assigned male at birth, and I lived for a long time in such a way that I tried to be a man but felt unhappy doing so. I was incapable of being masculine and content in my identity, which is the sense in which I think transgender women et al mean 'can not feel a man.' i.e. we personally are not able to achieve healthy masculinity, and we feel healthy and comfortable in other gender expressions.
Your second paragraph asks interesting questions.
First: I would agree there is no one right way to demonstrate masculinity (or femininity, or androgyny, et cetera). But, there is at least one wrong way to be a man: to be a toxically patriarchal man. Patriarchy legitimizes violence against the groups oppressed by patriarchy, which is unethical and immoral.
Second: the existence of the "mismatch" which transgender people like me experience ('dysphoria') is more complicated than being "between what they are and how they feel." All humans in society experience ourselves as interpellated into gender: we are assigned a sex at birth which society generally expects will and ought to align with the gender we occupy in social interactions throughout our future life. So this is to what you refer when you say, "what they are" -- the expected social role of a person based on the sex marker on their original birth certificate. Then, "what they feel" is the lived experience of people. My lived experience was that I was assigned male at birth, and I felt deeply unhappy and cognitively dissonant within the male social role that was expected of me. This dissonance -- dysphoria -- is the experience of "mismatch." Over time, it became clear that there was a mismatch between my assigned sex at birth, and the gendered social role in which I healthily and comfortably fit. My attempt to unhealthfully perform as a man generated the experience of dysphoria, because of the mismatch. The positive content of my character aligns most strongly with femininity, which is why I live now as a transgender woman. I am more happy as a woman, and I am more healthfully integrated into society as a woman. My experience of dysphoria is now in the past, which I am very thankful for.
I assert that some actions are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. I do not disavow the existence of social masculinity in all forms. I support healthy masculinity for those whom it suits. I hope this answers your questions.