Because she rejects the essential notion of "is". There's no such a thing as "is", because everything _is constructed_ by other things/relationships/structures of power. That's the postmodern logic. That rejection of classical metaphysics is, of course, stupid, but well, what can you do. 🤷♀️
@joane24 I agree that Postmodernism is just, at it's root, a way to justify moral relativism. It's been my personal observation as a laywer that the first step anyone takes on the road to doing some evil is first convincing themselves that, just in this instance, for them personally, this usually-bad thing is fair and reasonable.
If woman is a subjective performative category, then what is feminism? Who is oppressing who? Voluntarily self-formed subjective categories of collective "manhood" is therefore oppressing "women" who voluntarily choose to be women and thereby choose to be oppressed. The whole thing collapses.
Gender ideology is the diametric opposite of feminism. So it’s totally bizarre that so many gender ideologues think they are feminists. To feminists, gender (as distinguished from sex) was explicitly framed as the enemy, a product of patriarchy imposed on women - right from the start, long before they started using that particular word to describe it. That idea was fundamental and foundational to all streams of feminism. Gender ideologues, on the other hand, reify gender and elevate it ABOVE sex. How on earth can that be construed as feminist? We live in opposite land.
I've been a feminist since I was pre-teen in the 1960s - so maybe longer than Judith Butler has been. Her views have never been recognizable as feminism to me. None of the feminists of the 60s and 70s had any doubt that feminism is for/about female people, and everyone knew that female people = women and girls. When I first heard of Butler's ideas in the 1980s, I thought they were daft gibberish too muddled and idiotic to be taken seriously. I still do. Yet somehow her ideas have been widely embraced.
No "somehow" about it. They were enthusiastically embraced, and have purchase among those who greedily sieze any opportunity to hate men. It really is as simple as that.
What is feminism? Response to patriarchy. What is patriarchy? Men oppressing women. But then, there is no such thing as men and women. Then who is oppressing who and what is feminism? What I like about Butler is she inadvertengly dismantles this toxic hate movement called feminism.
There’s a difference between “What is a ‘woman’?” (asking for the definition of the word and “What is a woman LIKE?” (Looking for descriptors that will fit all members of that category). We start out confidently and inherently knowing who is in that category, and many feminists were then trying to change the expectations placed upon women - having already known WHO women WERE and ARE. It’s not that hard but Judith Butler wants to make it hard.
The category of womanhood is ancient and predates our modern understanding of biology. "What is a woman" definitely has a different answer at a different time. And I think her point is that it's *ok* to include trans women in that category
It would seem that people here are adding unnecessary complexities to what Butler said. It's quite clear what she's saying. However, the many nit picking interpretations amount to pseudo intellectual bullshit!
She has missed the point completely, right from the start. Feminists always new who woman were. There was no uncertainty there. They were questioning how society and culture impact on, discriminate against etc those woman. Sorry Judith - this is pretty simple, but you just missed the point completely
It's probably "sexist patriarchy" to expect anything even approaching logic from a woman, but how can females have feminism if there's no such thing as females?
She is repeating adages of past males who historically put women down and still do. A woman is a female human being whose capabilities are wide and far reaching, who are not subject to the limitations or expectations of others (men or women).
@@connor5669 Do you believe transwomen are women? If so, how do you define what a women is? And please don't answer "a woman is anybody who identifies as a woman" because that is meaningless gibberish.
I get dizzy from the circular logic. You don't get to even utter the word woman or female without some definition of what it means. Otherwise the word is just a noise that designates nobody.
These days I see JB as exhibit 1 in illustrating how vulnerable higher ed can be to those with cluster-b personality disorders, especially minority group members. Her utter unwillingness to stop spinning and instead actually value other people's knowledge and empirical experience, not just what passes for her own, exudes narcissism at every angle. Of course she must know that to remove her blinkers and agree with even a bit of sex realists' observations would be to admit how much of her academic output rests on sand. Thx for lifting the curtain behind which this very unclothed emperor still stands. (And tolerating the mixed metaphors.)
@@AmanitaWoodrose You're attributing personality disorders to a public figure because you don't like their ideology. You haven't identified sh!t. Come up with a counter argument or kick rocks.
@@matthewcaldwell8100 nobody has diagnosed anything, NPD hasn't been mentioned, it's simple observation of a certain type of behaviour, hardly complex enough to need an expert to verify. Am I allowed to say someone is agreeable, or am I underqualified to make that statement also? Ps. Astrology is perfect for pedants! how tight is your orb?
You ask who is the "you" but equally who is the "they" and historically and even to this day it is predominantly men. Women are not the dominant sex and even if you don't consider that men are an oppressor women still have unique life experiences because of reproductive labour. it makes no sense to include natal males in the words "woman" or "female", how can we discuss women's needs clearly if all our discussions include natal males?
The belief that women are an inferior or submissive sex is disconnected from the state of being female. it's connected to an ideology about women's place. In rejecting this, we should also accept trans women in the category because their treatment in the West mirrors that of womanhood
Sorry, my friend. It’s just not gonna help. Primarily because she knows full well these arguments aren’t “air tight”, let alone logical. She’s promoting them to catch and cultivate a “certain crowd” (what you might regard as an idiot of a particular type, shall we say.). For the primary task of dismantling “The West”. All other factors are incidental to that single minded goal. Unfortunate to say.🤷🏻
Conflating gender roles with gender, then gender with sex, is the heart of the confusion about the "question" of what is a women, and the resulting policies re women's spaces, sports, etc.
That's why Helen Joyce said that this a linguist revolution because it has no basis at all in reality. And they know it. They acknowledged it each time they're caught engaging in the mental acrobatics, the meally-mouthed hair-splitting, logic-chopping stupidity. That's them admitting that they know they're wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be taking refuge in that solistic subjectively. They argue that way because they know that the actuality is against them. Don't allow to conflate and just keep repeatedly point out the facts and stats, each and every single time.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 After watching her interviewed several times and knowing what feminism she subscribes to from a lot of the feminists back in the 1990s, I think it is more intentional than being misinformed. I think it's about changing the narrative for an ideological purpose.
Nice analysis. Thank you. In the 1970's when I was in my twenties and reading Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and Phylis Chesler - I was sure that the old stero-typed gender-roles were finally over and done with and that we were entering a new era of freedom for both women and men to simply live their interests and passions without sexist stereotyping and societal pressure. Boy was I wrong. I find it amazing to see "women" like Ms. Butler - calling themselves "feminists" while they are pulling the old gangrenous gender roles out of the dustbin of history, dusting them off, and with their pompous post-modern gibberish explaining to us mere mortals essentially - that if a man puts on a dress, lipstick and heels and wishes on a star - he turns into a "woman." Go figure. : /
Biological roles are Biologically determined by Biology. Only the Biological sex capable of giving birth to children can be mothers. Only the human beings that are born with Y chromosome are capable of impregnating adult human females. How many human hermaphrodites have ever been recorded throughout the enterity of human history? And this is just the very beginning of it. There's an overwhelming tsunami of Empirical data from countless scientific studies demonstrating that males are Biologically different from males, in all kinds of ways. The phenotypical characteristics that are genetical determined. The Judith Butlers of this world may refuse to acknowledge the raw reality of this truth, but there's no logical reason at all for anyone else to play along.
It's' just impossible to answer the question "what is a woman" Especially since some of the great "women" of today didn't start out that way! And according to the woke, a woman is anyone who says they're a woman. Ten years ago we knew the answer but as the woke keep telling us "the world has changed."
It's all so mysterious. We in 2024 apparently shouldn't dare to try to answer the question, "what is a woman" because someone might be offended or even arrested for hate speech. because the people in power didn't like what you said.
That's because they want to denaturalize sex in humans, they want to impose tr4shumanism, this is the first step. And well intended people believes whatever is disguised as "human rights". Bad ideas and good intentions are a bad combination.
There is a far more problematic logical fallacy: what is feminism? Feminism is the response to patriarchy. What is patriarchy? The sociopolitical system where men oppress women. But then: there is no such thing as men and women, and these are subjective categories based on performative gender. Okay. Then what is patriarchy? Who are the men oppressing and who are the women? And what then is feminism?
At least in the beginning she was talking about the societal norms about the roles of women. That is not same as the biological aspects of women. It’s another example of the trans activists hijacking the English language and twisting words and definitions to suit their ideology.
The fact that they need to do that amount of mental gymnastics, to the point that they had to create a college degree called "gender studies" makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.
💯 👏 👏 👏 thank you for breaking it down. No one could identify into, for example, the physical reality of having black skin and the treatment and vulnerability it brings with it. It would be highly offensive to even suggest you could. No one can identify into an age, or a disability, or an ethnicity or nationality. We are often told to listen those people for we could never understand the unique perspective of their lived experiences in those bodies. Sex is no different and we have to stand strong on this. Women deserve to name and own their own experience. Trans women can still present how they wish, even have their pronouns respected, and should be given equal treatment in society with housing, work, etc, but they must differentiated from women as a sex class. Basically gender expression should be protected, but not gender identity.
Gender critical folks spend a lot of time actively engaging gender ideology, but it is notable that gender ideologues don't return the favor - quite telling. I would love to be wrong about this and see an actual debate between somebody like Judith Butler and somebody gender critical.
She says ‘They tell you what a woman should be’ I think she’s mixing up challenging stereotypes with biology. A woman can be anything she wants but she’ll always be a woman no matter how she lives her life. That’s a great thing - you can be a woman in numerous ways.
Butler’s performative gender doesn’t square with the “gendered soul”. When a man claims he’s “always been a woman“ it’s not about performance but a mystical essence.
Is this is just recent posturing by Butler? The result of thinking she has to respond to the current trans debate? I would guess she likely gave that question little thought before. Why would anyone? It is obvious what a woman is, even to her
You get it wrong. "You cant be a tank driver" "You" means women, of course. When you change the word woman the way it also includes men, you cant use such phrases anymore. Thats how they want to fight patriarchy. Delete the class woman or make this class include men as well. This way when somebody says 'women cant drive a tank' you simply show a (trans)woman who is driving a tank. Do you get it? You can actually (maybe) get there where (real) woman can do anything. But ist much easier just to change the meaning of the word and it will also change the thinking. You are not allowed to make a new word for woman tho. Thats why cis-woman will get -banned- sooner or later. Every time you want to adress women you need to adress men as well, that why the replace 'woman" with things like "ppl who menstruate" At least thats how I understand such activists You are way too focused on sense und logic. But its simply postmodernism. Its simply about the fact you cant oppress women with phrases -women cant do this or that-. Its about the language and how it changes our thinking. Try to oppress women when you dont even have a word for such. Good luck
Judith Butler has got to be a genius comedian. I wouldn’t be able to play the character that she plays anywhere near as well as she does. Watching Judith Butler speak is a little like watching a Donald Trump speech, in that sense. Awesome in the old sense of the word.
She said she doesn't want answers, just conflict. Complaining to get what you want, being disruptive, leaving your followers unhappier. How does anyone trust these movements.
Thank you for your analysis! Agreed. Sex as a biological and objective category should never be on the line when the real problem is of social and/or psychological nature. It's a mismatch of problem and problem solving strategy from the getgo.
Someone who experiences extreme discomfort with androgens in their body causing all the affects on the body that androgens do. Say someone like this hates their facial hair because for them is a sensory issue or something. Or maybe they hate the way it makes their face look. They fear going bald or hate the baldness they have caused by androgens. They have an extreme discomfort with all the body hair. etc. Things like this. And then they transition, not necessarily because they want to be a woman, but because its a way for them to escape the pain from the affects of androgens. People like this likely will rather be female than male, not because they literally desire being female, but because *being female would mean that they're not male.*
3:26 "Who was that 'you' referring to? *Females* . It was referring to *female people* . Not males... *females* ." 😂 Love your delivery -- sad but very funny your having to lay it out simply and slowly, as if for the benefit of the cognitively impaired. And yet some commenters still seem to have trouble following along. They've got a 50/50 chance of landing on the right answer, but are still yet to arrive. Sigh.
While it's true that Judith Butler is referring to females when she says "woman," her argument is perhaps better understood as saying that gender and biological sex are different. Females don’t need to identify with the category of "woman" because they can do anything; the gender norms associated with "woman" have been and still are restrictive. However, this doesn’t change the fact that females have been historically and culturally oppressed by males. The biological sex of females hasn't changed, but what it means to be a "woman" has.
This is one of the reasons I don't like Butler, not just as a philosopher, but as a person too. Anyone who read "The Second Sex" and studied the bare minimum of the second feminists wave understand what de Beauvoir meant back then. Butler is supposed to being the expert on this subject, she has a great career and can afford a good lifestyle by teaching about this subject. That's a privilege that many who studied the same as her and have a great activism, can't. She definitely knows what de Beauvoir meant back then. She is extremely dishonest.
Very good analysis. I really wish my ex-husband, who claims he's me, the mother of our sons, and does so with details of my labors to give birth to them (naturally!) could come to your mindset.
Thanks for breaking down this fundamental contradiction Ray - TRAs cherry pick from whatever serves their ideological interests. Women and girls don’t benefit from these new orthodoxies ❤
She probably refuses to accept that there are limitations for women as a consequence of biological facts. On that denial she then bases all kinds of nonsensical theories. (Just an idea, I don‘t really know her initial thoughts and motivation. But if I‘m right, JB, there are also advantages that come with being a woman. There‘s a balance in nature, else there would be more chaos and destruction, if there wasn’t always a tendency to balance out imbalance, so don‘t worry;))
- Biological constitution. - Social construction of permitted roles. - Result: individual with functional limits. A male cannot have the biological constitution of a female. A male or female can change those aspects of their biology that they consider relevant and that are within the reach of science. The result will be an individual with certain functional limits and possible entry into certain social roles. Human agency (the ability to act) is the result of the production of neurotransmitters in the brain, according to the circumstances of the individual. That agency may not correspond to the triggers of neurotypical people. In those cases, society reacts by limiting that agency. This results in some individuals resorting to modifications that they believe are necessary to prevent others from limiting their natural reactions. The possible social acceptance of transgressive agency.
I think what neither Butler nor this Williams chap seem to fully take into account is the key role that ‘perceptive discrimination’ plays in oppression. Some people are oppressed as women whether they have uteruses etc that politicians legislate over OR whether they are perceived and read as women by a patriarchal society. Their personal identifications don’t come into it; it’s society (both in its systems and in the individuals that comprise it) that constructs and oppresses them as women, on the grounds of biology or of presentation, or a combination of both. This is one of the major stumbling blocks of ‘sex realists’ and ‘gender criticals’, but it’s something that dogs some modes of trans politics too.
My understanding, not having read Simone De Beauvoir, is that one can interpret what she wrote as intrinsically taking it for granted that being a biological female was a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a woman, and that her famous phrase “‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” was in effect describing that. For example, she next writes, “‘No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the HUMAN FEMALE takes on in society.’ My deliberately capitalised “HUMAN FEMALE” is the crucial bit: it makes sense that she is referring to biological females when she uses the term “human female”. I suspect de Beauvoir took it as obvious, not needing to be said, that women must be biological females. If my interpretation described here is correct (??) then Butler has misinterpreted de Beauvoir.
3:33, now he states an opinion,always when we have an agenda we make sure our words match the desired outcome and are very careful to avoid any contradictions to our argument,Butler describes many good reasons as to why conventions are a poor second best to good sound definitions that describe the changing nuances of words and their meaning. She describes the application of the definition of woman as fluid, why? Because the word is not the property of one set group, for example biological female, how does it just become ok to exclude transgender women, it is ok if you feel the need to justify excluding them. Leaning on historical convention is just one way to keep the status quo but who said “ my way or the highway” those that wish absolute control of the definition have no room for any usurpers to what they perceive as their exclusive property.A transgender woman has just as much right to appropriate the word. Why because for her the conventions that typically belong to women are also essential for her well being. Do we say no she is male, sure if our goal is to selfishly define woman in such a way that it remains the exclusive property of biological women. Her reality which has just as much right to define the terms of what is a woman says otherwise. So this gets down to biological women claiming they are the victims and somehow that ensures the definition remains exclusive. Selfish behaviour should not be the prerequisite for owning a definition.
"A transgender woman has just as much right to appropriate the word." No, he has not. Because in order to live in a functionning society, we need words for biological facts. Did you ever need a doctor? Have you ever been raped? etc etc etc
I'm not a philosopher, but as a layman, I think this critique would have more impact if I felt you understood what Butler is saying. As it is, it's irrelevant and disappointing.
For Judith Butler the subjective is over the objective....She wants people militating on a lot of questions with no answer, ¿what is the contribution to the knowledge?, She is a sophist
Does Butler identify as a white straight male? Why doesn't he? What better identity to run the queer and feminist movement. They might actually succeed.
This women greatly upsets me. She mixes up sex, gender roles which goes into expression and presentation. She mixes up how a person, man or woman, expresses themselves that that determines who they are and ignores their sex completely. Also who cares if a person is gender non conforming? They don’t have to be! Girls can be tomboys, boys can wear dresses, and they can play with whatever toys they want. The child will usually grow up to be gay, and grow out of gender dysphoria.
I usually don't comment on CZcams videos but I made an exception for this one. I think you don't realize that you are making Butler's argument for them without realizing it, because you are eliding the concept of feminine gender with that of the female sex under the word "woman." So on the one hand we have primary and secondary sex expression which, in humans, is linked to the X chromosome. But it is not the chromosomes themselves that determine sex amd rather the proteins they code for. Which leads to sexual presentation being something of a spectrum, and one that usually but not always corresponds to gene organization. On the other hand you have the concepts of masculinity and femininity which are the set of behaviors and gender role stereotypes we express. We then make strong pairings between those gender concepts and the sex concepts to create a dual identity. No one is arguing about what internal plumbing can support a geatating embryo. But that second set of concepts - that of masculinity and femininity - that's where Butler is concerned. And what the culture has done - and continues to do - is to create a strong pairing between what it defines as masculine and a male-sexed body. To be male is not just to jave the right chromosomes leading to the right cocktail of hormones and proteins to oead to the development of a penis and testes. It's all this other atuff, theae behaviors that are also expected. But if you decinstruct that behavioral expression you fond that to be a "man" or a "woman" - that is, to be both female-bodied and feminine - is not so cleanly defined. Gender expression is even more of a spectrum than sexual expression, and what culture does is (attenpt to) coerce us into a binary consisting of these roles, a binary that is more than jist wjat you're allowed to do but encompasses identity. Whether you agree with Butler or not, you should at oeast understand the argument before you claim it has a glaring flaw. The flaw is in your understanding of the argument you are attempting to critique.
There is no fatal flaw with the clip you presented. What she said vs what you argued are different things, you straw manned her. Not that I agree with her in general, but this video isn't finding any logical flaws with the clip presented.
This was good. See also Zizek’s short video on YT on trans and Butler. The core contradiction of Trans is that it is totally essentialist and Cartesian - that the authentic true self is a disembodied gendered soul/identity. And yet, Butler says that gender is socially constructed - as a anti-essentialist as it gets. So the Trans ideology combines essentialism with anti-essentialism . And you end up with nonsense. It’s the philosophical equivalent of dividing by zero. Serious philosophers don’t even bother with this topic b/c is so low-level and dumb. But i get the important work you do with your video to at least throw in your 2 cents for the non-philosophers out there getting duped by nonsense. But please look into Zizek’s short 5 min clip on this topic.
that moment when a random youtuber thinks he's taken down a leading academic by using biological essentialism: the most basic and inept critique of feminist theory 😂
@@RayAlexWilliams First of all I just wanted to say my original comment came across a lot nastier than I meant it to so I do apologise for that, I am genuinely interested in having a constructive conversation with you. The short answer is that your argument is embedded in biological essentialism. Your argument is predicated on the idea that the experience of women is inherently natural and unaltered by the society we live in, that the discrimination historically and presently faced by women targets their 'natural feminine qualities', when there is actually a lot of evidence and theory to suggest that there is no such thing as natural feminine qualities, instead behavior associated with women and men has been passed down through generations of expectations or traditions in society. A much more articulate way this is expressed is in the article 'Doing Gender' written by Candace West and Don Zimmerman in the academic journal 'Gender and Society' in 1987. You say that gendered discrimination was targeted against females, completely failing to take into consideration how someone is deemed a women by society and how this impacts the discrimination they will face. For instance we could explore women who were denied womanhood due to issues with their reproductive health - this could often lead to women feeling excluded and outcast from society - ultimately negatively affecting their welfare and ability to engage with life in the society they lived in. This is due to the fact that these women were unable to perform reproductive labor which was (and you could argue still is) the main 'duty' or 'function' attributed/forced onto women in society. As we can see this means that someone who identifies as and has lived and experienced their entire life as a woman was unable to engage in society similarly to their peers due to the fact that society has deemed these individuals as failing to meet the biological standards that define a woman. However I'm sure both you and I would argue that this biologically essentialist approach fails to grasp the full picture, and that despite these woman failing to meet the standards of womanhood constructed by society at the time - they were still women. There are other examples as well which will lay out the flaws of using a biologically essentialist framework but I thought this would be a good one to use in this context.
@@rolinti9146 "Your argument is predicated on the idea [...] that the discrimination historically and presently faced by women targets their 'natural feminine qualities'": No, Ray Williams says exactly the opposite, namely that women are discriminated against because they are FEMALE (not feminine!). There are no "natural feminine qualities", it's trans activists who want to believe that.
Hi, my understanding is that males can't become females but they can become girls and women, because biological sex isn't black and white. An intersex woman with XY chromosomes is biologically and chromosomally male, but she is still accepted as a girl and later in adulthood as a woman. Biological sex category ( male / female ) isn't the same as gender categories ( boy, girl, man, woman ). A woman is an adult human with characteristics associated to the female sex, this includes cis women ( biologically female with female identity ), trans women ( biologically male with female identity ) and intersex women ( biologically either as there can be many chromosomal and physical variants, with female identity ), as they all share many characteristics of the female sex. If the definition of a woman is purely XX, biological female with female reproductive organs, then that erases more people than not. The same but opposite is true for men. Nature is diverse and makes errors, people are the ones struggling. It's is completely natural to be born cis, intersex and trans.
@@sallyhally87 Wait you said "People with sexual development disorders are still male and female, despite is being harder to judge, and it doesn't erase the fact that men and women are a sex category." So would you argue that intersex women who are XY and biologically male are men? I don't think you looked into this well enough, you can even find some CZcams creators who are XY intersex women and they were documented as female at birth grew up as girls and into women in adulthood, even though they are biologically and chromosomally male. EDIT: "There is no internal sense of gender identity for the majority" I don't see how that's the case, just because most people are cis, doesn't mean they have no gender identity or an internal sense of self, it just means that they are born with a matching sex and identity so it goes unnoticed, for people who are born with mismatching sex and identity it's noticeable because it stands out to them. How do you explain trans people who are born with their internal sense of self being the opposite of their biological sex, without them being taught that that's a thing.
@@sallyhally87 I apologize but you are clearly not too informed on this topic. Conflating biological sex and gender only causes confusion when trying to have nuanced discussions about a nuanced topic. Intersex XY women, are biologically and genetically male, but have physically female anatomy, and develop as typical women do, but often times they don't have a womb. There is a distinction between being male and being a man. Becoming a man is maturing into adulthood and having characteristics of an adult male. When we say someone is a man, we are talking about people with physical characteristics of male adults. When we say someone is a boy, we're talking about physical characteristics of an adolescent male or younger. An intersex XY woman, doesn't have physical characteristics of a male adult. She has the characteristics of a female adult, a woman. Even scientific literature disagrees with you, it clearly says that sex is defined in 2 categories ( male / female ) not man and woman. Man and woman isn't a sex category, but it's related to sex characteristics of males and females. Most medical and scientific communities agree that gender identity is real, globally. Where are you getting your information from? I'm, for example, from Serbia and it's the same case here as well when it comes to the medical and scientific community. Cis is an accurate descriptor for people who have their identity aligned with their biological sex. It's only ideological if you're denying that gender identity is a real thing, which you are indeed doing so It's pointless to argue over this particular term and I'm not interested in doing so. I understand where you stand and what you mean, and I presume you understand the same for me. As long as we know what we mean by the term, it's fine. But yeah again, please tell me where you're getting your information from, because it's quite evidently not from the medical and scientific consensus on this.
@@sallyhally87 Exhausting. So if you had an XY intersex child, you'd bring them up as a boy and later as a man? Despite the fact that they have androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) meaning that they are resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance ( androgens )? They would develop in female-typical ways, and look female externally, but you would refer to them as males? Correct? I hope you see the issue with that, there is nothing you can do to make them develop as males, they are resistant to androgens, and androgens are responsible for male characteristics. Their bodies are only receptive to estrogens, responsible for female characteristics. Do you understand how many issues that would cause for the person if you're trying to bring them up and refer to them as a male? They'd never be able to live peacefully or normally in society. Do you see how inhumane and wrong that would be? Not to mention, that if you're outside in the real world, you identify people based on their physical attributes. If you were asked to put people you see outside in 2 categories, male and female, you'd more than likely put intersex women and trans women in the female category, and the opposite for intersex men and trans men, because that's how we, generally observe and identify people. You would have no idea if someone is biologically male or female based on their physical attributes and secondary sex characteristics alone. And no, we're clearly not all getting information from the same place as everyone else. Googling any of this, immediately shows your arguments are incorrect. Talking to psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, again shows your arguments are incorrect. Just look at how you're describing intersex XY women, it's weird to say the least.
@@sallyhally87 So if you had an XY intersex child, you'd bring them up as a boy and later as a man? Despite the fact that they are resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance ( androgens )? They would develop in female-typical ways, and look female externally, but you would refer to them as males? Correct? I hope you see the issue with that, there is nothing you can do to make them develop as males, they are resistant to androgens, and androgens are responsible for male characteristics. Their bodies are only receptive to estrogens, responsible for female characteristics. Do you understand how many issues that would cause for the person if you're trying to bring them up and refer to them as a male? They'd never be able to live peacefully or normally in society. Do you see how inhumane and wrong that would be? Not to mention, that if you're outside you'd identify people based on their physical attributes. If you were tasked to put people you see outside in 2 categories, male and female, you'd more than likely put intersex women and trans women in the female category, and the opposite for intersex men and trans men, because that's how we, generally observe and identify people. You would have no idea if someone is biologically male or female based on their physical attributes and secondary sex characteristics alone. And we're clearly not all getting information from the same place as everyone else. Googling any of this, immediately shows your arguments are incorrect. Talking to psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, again shows your arguments are incorrect. Just look at how you're describing intersex XY women, it's weird to say the least. With your logic, trans woman is somehow both a man and a woman and an intersex XY woman is also both a man and a woman. It's weird and confusing to say that one can be woman and also a man at the same time and inconvenient. It's much easier to understand that trans women are biologically male and that intersex XY women are biologically male also. Not saying that they are both male and female, or both man or a woman. Although in the case of intersex people they truly can be both female and male in terms of their primary sex characteristics.
@@sallyhally87 Acknowledging that an intersex XY woman is biologically male but has female characteristics including a vagina, just not the womb, isn't lying though? It is indeed acknowledging the reality of the situation. I think you're misrepresenting my arguments here, because I'm not advocating for lying to people at all. I'm all for acknowledging our biological reality, but it's also a lived reality that, in the example of intersex XY women that they are observed and identified as women and live as such. To really simplify my point, it's scientifically recognized that not all men are XY and not all women are XX.
Butler confuses "what is a woman?" with "what can women do?"
Because she rejects the essential notion of "is". There's no such a thing as "is", because everything _is constructed_ by other things/relationships/structures of power. That's the postmodern logic. That rejection of classical metaphysics is, of course, stupid, but well, what can you do. 🤷♀️
@joane24 I agree that Postmodernism is just, at it's root, a way to justify moral relativism. It's been my personal observation as a laywer that the first step anyone takes on the road to doing some evil is first convincing themselves that, just in this instance, for them personally, this usually-bad thing is fair and reasonable.
Hell yeah she does!
And she ignores that biology is desccriptive not prescriptive.
If woman is a subjective performative category, then what is feminism? Who is oppressing who? Voluntarily self-formed subjective categories of collective "manhood" is therefore oppressing "women" who voluntarily choose to be women and thereby choose to be oppressed. The whole thing collapses.
Gender ideology is the diametric opposite of feminism. So it’s totally bizarre that so many gender ideologues think they are feminists.
To feminists, gender (as distinguished from sex) was explicitly framed as the enemy, a product of patriarchy imposed on women - right from the start, long before they started using that particular word to describe it. That idea was fundamental and foundational to all streams of feminism.
Gender ideologues, on the other hand, reify gender and elevate it ABOVE sex. How on earth can that be construed as feminist? We live in opposite land.
I've been a feminist since I was pre-teen in the 1960s - so maybe longer than Judith Butler has been. Her views have never been recognizable as feminism to me. None of the feminists of the 60s and 70s had any doubt that feminism is for/about female people, and everyone knew that female people = women and girls.
When I first heard of Butler's ideas in the 1980s, I thought they were daft gibberish too muddled and idiotic to be taken seriously. I still do. Yet somehow her ideas have been widely embraced.
Because her ideas appeal to men.
@@TheSapphire51I was just here to type that. I agree 💯
No "somehow" about it. They were enthusiastically embraced, and have purchase among those who greedily sieze any opportunity to hate men. It really is as simple as that.
I don't believe you. You're an inactive sleeper account from 2019.
What is feminism? Response to patriarchy. What is patriarchy? Men oppressing women. But then, there is no such thing as men and women. Then who is oppressing who and what is feminism? What I like about Butler is she inadvertengly dismantles this toxic hate movement called feminism.
There’s a difference between “What is a ‘woman’?” (asking for the definition of the word and “What is a woman LIKE?” (Looking for descriptors that will fit all members of that category). We start out confidently and inherently knowing who is in that category, and many feminists were then trying to change the expectations placed upon women - having already known WHO women WERE and ARE. It’s not that hard but Judith Butler wants to make it hard.
💯
The category of womanhood is ancient and predates our modern understanding of biology. "What is a woman" definitely has a different answer at a different time. And I think her point is that it's *ok* to include trans women in that category
It would seem that people here are adding unnecessary complexities to what Butler said. It's quite clear what she's saying. However, the many nit picking interpretations amount to pseudo intellectual bullshit!
@@connor5669But it's NOT okay, though.
@@susanhopemason why not?
She has missed the point completely, right from the start. Feminists always new who woman were. There was no uncertainty there. They were questioning how society and culture impact on, discriminate against etc those woman. Sorry Judith - this is pretty simple, but you just missed the point completely
That's absolutely NOT why feminism started. It was because women didn't have a voice in the home, workplace, or government.
One of the most brilliant and to the point takedown of Judith Butler's idiotic deconstructionist views on gender!
Judith Butler isn't a feminist, she identifies as one without knowing actually what it means.
Lol what does feminism mean to you bc tbh I think she's much more anti fascist than the gender critical crowd
Man-hating.
@@calstonjewI see you don't know what it means either
@@Irokm1 Where's the lie?
It's probably "sexist patriarchy" to expect anything even approaching logic from a woman, but how can females have feminism if there's no such thing as females?
She is repeating adages of past males who historically put women down and still do. A woman is a female human being whose capabilities are wide and far reaching, who are not subject to the limitations or expectations of others (men or women).
I think they would agree with you, but also say that shouldn't exclude trans women in the category
@@connor5669 Do you believe transwomen are women? If so, how do you define what a women is? And please don't answer "a woman is anybody who identifies as a woman" because that is meaningless gibberish.
I get dizzy from the circular logic. You don't get to even utter the word woman or female without some definition of what it means. Otherwise the word is just a noise that designates nobody.
She is most absurd
These days I see JB as exhibit 1 in illustrating how vulnerable higher ed can be to those with cluster-b personality disorders, especially minority group members. Her utter unwillingness to stop spinning and instead actually value other people's knowledge and empirical experience, not just what passes for her own, exudes narcissism at every angle. Of course she must know that to remove her blinkers and agree with even a bit of sex realists' observations would be to admit how much of her academic output rests on sand.
Thx for lifting the curtain behind which this very unclothed emperor still stands. (And tolerating the mixed metaphors.)
Pathologizing someone you disagree with is not actually a counter argument.
@@matthewcaldwell8100 so correctly identifying narcissistic behaviour is off limits in your view?
@@AmanitaWoodrose You're attributing personality disorders to a public figure because you don't like their ideology. You haven't identified sh!t. Come up with a counter argument or kick rocks.
@@AmanitaWoodrose You haven’t “correctly” identified anything. Psychiatric diagnosis of public figures is astrology for pedants.
@@matthewcaldwell8100 nobody has diagnosed anything, NPD hasn't been mentioned, it's simple observation of a certain type of behaviour, hardly complex enough to need an expert to verify. Am I allowed to say someone is agreeable, or am I underqualified to make that statement also?
Ps. Astrology is perfect for pedants! how tight is your orb?
You ask who is the "you" but equally who is the "they" and historically and even to this day it is predominantly men. Women are not the dominant sex and even if you don't consider that men are an oppressor women still have unique life experiences because of reproductive labour. it makes no sense to include natal males in the words "woman" or "female", how can we discuss women's needs clearly if all our discussions include natal males?
The belief that women are an inferior or submissive sex is disconnected from the state of being female. it's connected to an ideology about women's place. In rejecting this, we should also accept trans women in the category because their treatment in the West mirrors that of womanhood
Debunking Judith Butler’s ideas and flawed arguments is the key to debunking Gender Identity Ideology.
and harming us
@@Pazzystarif someone who is a detransitioner who thinks critically threatens you, I feel sorry for you.
Sorry, my friend. It’s just not gonna help. Primarily because she knows full well these arguments aren’t “air tight”, let alone logical. She’s promoting them to catch and cultivate a “certain crowd” (what you might regard as an idiot of a particular type, shall we say.). For the primary task of dismantling “The West”. All other factors are incidental to that single minded goal. Unfortunate to say.🤷🏻
Leaving the categories open to what constitutes a woman:
This brick in my hand is a woman now.
Conflating gender roles with gender, then gender with sex, is the heart of the confusion about the "question" of what is a women, and the resulting policies re women's spaces, sports, etc.
That's why Helen Joyce said that this a linguist revolution because it has no basis at all in reality. And they know it. They acknowledged it each time they're caught engaging in the mental acrobatics, the meally-mouthed hair-splitting, logic-chopping stupidity. That's them admitting that they know they're wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be taking refuge in that solistic subjectively. They argue that way because they know that the actuality is against them.
Don't allow to conflate and just keep repeatedly point out the facts and stats, each and every single time.
Feminism challenged and contested the rolls women played not what a woman is. That is where Judith Butler goes wrong.
💯
Exactly! I really don't know why she makes this claim all the time. She is so misinformed it's insane.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 After watching her interviewed several times and knowing what feminism she subscribes to from a lot of the feminists back in the 1990s, I think it is more intentional than being misinformed. I think it's about changing the narrative for an ideological purpose.
@@artgurrl It's definitely that.
Apologies for losing my temper. I cannot stand Judith Butler.
If she’s reading your post shell love the attention 🙄
"Who is the 'you'"? Well put. You have spotted the flaw in her argument. 👏
Nice analysis. Thank you. In the 1970's when I was in my twenties and reading Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and Phylis Chesler - I was sure that the old stero-typed gender-roles were finally over and done with and that we were entering a new era of freedom for both women and men to simply live their interests and passions without sexist stereotyping and societal pressure. Boy was I wrong. I find it amazing to see "women" like Ms. Butler - calling themselves "feminists" while they are pulling the old gangrenous gender roles out of the dustbin of history, dusting them off, and with their pompous post-modern gibberish explaining to us mere mortals essentially - that if a man puts on a dress, lipstick and heels and wishes on a star - he turns into a "woman." Go figure. : /
Biological roles are Biologically determined by Biology. Only the Biological sex capable of giving birth to children can be mothers. Only the human beings that are born with Y chromosome are capable of impregnating adult human females. How many human hermaphrodites have ever been recorded throughout the enterity of human history?
And this is just the very beginning of it. There's an overwhelming tsunami of Empirical data from countless scientific studies demonstrating that males are Biologically different from males, in all kinds of ways. The phenotypical characteristics that are genetical determined.
The Judith Butlers of this world may refuse to acknowledge the raw reality of this truth, but there's no logical reason at all for anyone else to play along.
It's' just impossible to answer the question "what is a woman" Especially since some of the great "women" of today didn't start out that way! And according to the woke, a woman is anyone who says they're a woman. Ten years ago we knew the answer but as the woke keep telling us "the world has changed."
Yes, it has devolved
the world does not reconize this as even worthy of discussion...I agree
It's all so mysterious. We in 2024 apparently shouldn't dare to try to answer the question, "what is a woman" because someone might be offended or even arrested for hate speech. because the people in power didn't like what you said.
That's because they want to denaturalize sex in humans, they want to impose tr4shumanism, this is the first step. And well intended people believes whatever is disguised as "human rights". Bad ideas and good intentions are a bad combination.
they coming for your 1A....do not comply
This mess is largely her fault
There is a far more problematic logical fallacy: what is feminism? Feminism is the response to patriarchy. What is patriarchy? The sociopolitical system where men oppress women. But then: there is no such thing as men and women, and these are subjective categories based on performative gender. Okay. Then what is patriarchy? Who are the men oppressing and who are the women? And what then is feminism?
At least in the beginning she was talking about the societal norms about the roles of women. That is not same as the biological aspects of women. It’s another example of the trans activists hijacking the English language and twisting words and definitions to suit their ideology.
What Butler is saying is actually essentialist and therefore sexist.
Disingenuous by Butler, she knows presenting this idea to her own breed of feminist 20 to 30 years ago would get the others enraged and flabbergasted
The fact that they need to do that amount of mental gymnastics, to the point that they had to create a college degree called "gender studies" makes it impossible for me to take them seriously.
💯 👏 👏 👏 thank you for breaking it down. No one could identify into, for example, the physical reality of having black skin and the treatment and vulnerability it brings with it. It would be highly offensive to even suggest you could. No one can identify into an age, or a disability, or an ethnicity or nationality. We are often told to listen those people for we could never understand the unique perspective of their lived experiences in those bodies. Sex is no different and we have to stand strong on this. Women deserve to name and own their own experience. Trans women can still present how they wish, even have their pronouns respected, and should be given equal treatment in society with housing, work, etc, but they must differentiated from women as a sex class. Basically gender expression should be protected, but not gender identity.
yep to all that
Gender critical folks spend a lot of time actively engaging gender ideology, but it is notable that gender ideologues don't return the favor - quite telling.
I would love to be wrong about this and see an actual debate between somebody like Judith Butler and somebody gender critical.
She says ‘They tell you what a woman should be’ I think she’s mixing up challenging stereotypes with biology. A woman can be anything she wants but she’ll always be a woman no matter how she lives her life. That’s a great thing - you can be a woman in numerous ways.
And you can be a man in numerous ways. A feminime male is just as much a man as The Rock.
Butler’s performative gender doesn’t square with the “gendered soul”. When a man claims he’s “always been a woman“ it’s not about performance but a mystical essence.
Oh no, you're making me listen to Judith Butler again‽
If I must suffer, then so must my audience
@@RayAlexWilliamsyou do a good job debunking Judith Butler. Keep up the good work, because it is important work!! 👍
Is this is just recent posturing by Butler? The result of thinking she has to respond to the current trans debate?
I would guess she likely gave that question little thought before. Why would anyone? It is obvious what a woman is, even to her
you've also pointed to why she writes incoherently. she wouldn't want people to know she writing bullshit
You get it wrong.
"You cant be a tank driver"
"You" means women, of course. When you change the word woman the way it also includes men, you cant use such phrases anymore. Thats how they want to fight patriarchy. Delete the class woman or make this class include men as well. This way when somebody says 'women cant drive a tank' you simply show a (trans)woman who is driving a tank.
Do you get it?
You can actually (maybe) get there where (real) woman can do anything. But ist much easier just to change the meaning of the word and it will also change the thinking. You are not allowed to make a new word for woman tho. Thats why cis-woman will get -banned- sooner or later. Every time you want to adress women you need to adress men as well, that why the replace 'woman" with things like "ppl who menstruate"
At least thats how I understand such activists
You are way too focused on sense und logic. But its simply postmodernism. Its simply about the fact you cant oppress women with phrases -women cant do this or that-. Its about the language and how it changes our thinking. Try to oppress women when you dont even have a word for such. Good luck
She talks about women from a viewpoint of how they were treated many, many year ago.
Judith Butler has got to be a genius comedian. I wouldn’t be able to play the character that she plays anywhere near as well as she does. Watching Judith Butler speak is a little like watching a Donald Trump speech, in that sense. Awesome in the old sense of the word.
Bravo Ray!
Exactly! It wasn't "imposed" on males in female cosplay
She said she doesn't want answers, just conflict. Complaining to get what you want, being disruptive, leaving your followers unhappier. How does anyone trust these movements.
Thank you for your analysis! Agreed. Sex as a biological and objective category should never be on the line when the real problem is of social and/or psychological nature.
It's a mismatch of problem and problem solving strategy from the getgo.
Feminism did not start with contesting ideas of "what a woman is" but rather "what a woman can or can not do". BIG DIFFERENCE.
I understood that she spoke about woman as a gender role. She did not define "woman" in that video, so it is impossible to draw any conclusion here.
how do you feel about the concept of autoandrophobia?
Someone who experiences extreme discomfort with androgens in their body causing all the affects on the body that androgens do. Say someone like this hates their facial hair because for them is a sensory issue or something. Or maybe they hate the way it makes their face look. They fear going bald or hate the baldness they have caused by androgens. They have an extreme discomfort with all the body hair. etc. Things like this. And then they transition, not necessarily because they want to be a woman, but because its a way for them to escape the pain from the affects of androgens.
People like this likely will rather be female than male, not because they literally desire being female, but because *being female would mean that they're not male.*
It exsists for sure and is a former of rejection/denial of the material reality of what one is, as all trans identities are.
At least they admit they can't answer it because defining it would exclude
Yes. You are entirely correct. It seems JB gets paid a lot of money for talking a load of nonsense.
3:26 "Who was that 'you' referring to? *Females* . It was referring to *female people* . Not males... *females* ." 😂 Love your delivery -- sad but very funny your having to lay it out simply and slowly, as if for the benefit of the cognitively impaired. And yet some commenters still seem to have trouble following along. They've got a 50/50 chance of landing on the right answer, but are still yet to arrive. Sigh.
While it's true that Judith Butler is referring to females when she says "woman," her argument is perhaps better understood as saying that gender and biological sex are different. Females don’t need to identify with the category of "woman" because they can do anything; the gender norms associated with "woman" have been and still are restrictive. However, this doesn’t change the fact that females have been historically and culturally oppressed by males. The biological sex of females hasn't changed, but what it means to be a "woman" has.
This is one of the reasons I don't like Butler, not just as a philosopher, but as a person too.
Anyone who read "The Second Sex" and studied the bare minimum of the second feminists wave understand what de Beauvoir meant back then.
Butler is supposed to being the expert on this subject, she has a great career and can afford a good lifestyle by teaching about this subject. That's a privilege that many who studied the same as her and have a great activism, can't.
She definitely knows what de Beauvoir meant back then. She is extremely dishonest.
Good on you, Ray!
Very good analysis. I really wish my ex-husband, who claims he's me, the mother of our sons, and does so with details of my labors to give birth to them (naturally!) could come to your mindset.
Thanks for breaking down this fundamental contradiction Ray - TRAs cherry pick from whatever serves their ideological interests. Women and girls don’t benefit from these new orthodoxies ❤
She probably refuses to accept that there are limitations for women as a consequence of biological facts. On that denial she then bases all kinds of nonsensical theories. (Just an idea, I don‘t really know her initial thoughts and motivation. But if I‘m right, JB, there are also advantages that come with being a woman. There‘s a balance in nature, else there would be more chaos and destruction, if there wasn’t always a tendency to balance out imbalance, so don‘t worry;))
Yeah, you're not remotely right, so I wouldn't worry.
- Biological constitution.
- Social construction of permitted roles.
- Result: individual with functional limits.
A male cannot have the biological constitution of a female.
A male or female can change those aspects of their biology that they consider relevant and that are within the reach of science.
The result will be an individual with certain functional limits and possible entry into certain social roles.
Human agency (the ability to act) is the result of the production of neurotransmitters in the brain, according to the circumstances of the individual.
That agency may not correspond to the triggers of neurotypical people.
In those cases, society reacts by limiting that agency.
This results in some individuals resorting to modifications that they believe are necessary to prevent others from limiting their natural reactions.
The possible social acceptance of transgressive agency.
I think what neither Butler nor this Williams chap seem to fully take into account is the key role that ‘perceptive discrimination’ plays in oppression. Some people are oppressed as women whether they have uteruses etc that politicians legislate over OR whether they are perceived and read as women by a patriarchal society. Their personal identifications don’t come into it; it’s society (both in its systems and in the individuals that comprise it) that constructs and oppresses them as women, on the grounds of biology or of presentation, or a combination of both. This is one of the major stumbling blocks of ‘sex realists’ and ‘gender criticals’, but it’s something that dogs some modes of trans politics too.
very worthwhile to watch.
My understanding, not having read Simone De Beauvoir, is that one can interpret what she wrote as intrinsically taking it for granted that being a biological female was a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a woman, and that her famous phrase “‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” was in effect describing that.
For example, she next writes, “‘No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the HUMAN FEMALE takes on in society.’ My deliberately capitalised “HUMAN FEMALE” is the crucial bit: it makes sense that she is referring to biological females when she uses the term “human female”.
I suspect de Beauvoir took it as obvious, not needing to be said, that women must be biological females. If my interpretation described here is correct (??) then Butler has misinterpreted de Beauvoir.
One becomes a woman by going through puberty.
I don't get why people believe she is brilliant
3:33, now he states an opinion,always when we have an agenda we make sure our words match the desired outcome and are very careful to avoid any contradictions to our argument,Butler describes many good reasons as to why conventions are a poor second best to good sound definitions that describe the changing nuances of words and their meaning. She describes the application of the definition of woman as fluid, why? Because the word is not the property of one set group, for example biological female, how does it just become ok to exclude transgender women, it is ok if you feel the need to justify excluding them. Leaning on historical convention is just one way to keep the status quo but who said “ my way or the highway” those that wish absolute control of the definition have no room for any usurpers to what they perceive as their exclusive property.A transgender woman has just as much right to appropriate the word. Why because for her the conventions that typically belong to women are also essential for her well being. Do we say no she is male, sure if our goal is to selfishly define woman in such a way that it remains the exclusive property of biological women. Her reality which has just as much right to define the terms of what is a woman says otherwise. So this gets down to biological women claiming they are the victims and somehow that ensures the definition remains exclusive. Selfish behaviour should not be the prerequisite for owning a definition.
"A transgender woman has just as much right to appropriate the word." No, he has not. Because in order to live in a functionning society, we need words for biological facts. Did you ever need a doctor? Have you ever been raped? etc etc etc
Each time I have tried to comprehend her Gender Trouble book, I begin to understand what it must be like to suffer the early stages of dementia.
I'm not a philosopher, but as a layman, I think this critique would have more impact if I felt you understood what Butler is saying. As it is, it's irrelevant and disappointing.
For Judith Butler the subjective is over the objective....She wants people militating on a lot of questions with no answer, ¿what is the contribution to the knowledge?, She is a sophist
Does Butler identify as a white straight male? Why doesn't he? What better identity to run the queer and feminist movement. They might actually succeed.
How the fuck does Whitey McWhitepants here explain Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I A Woman” speech, then?
This women greatly upsets me. She mixes up sex, gender roles which goes into expression and presentation. She mixes up how a person, man or woman, expresses themselves that that determines who they are and ignores their sex completely. Also who cares if a person is gender non conforming? They don’t have to be! Girls can be tomboys, boys can wear dresses, and they can play with whatever toys they want. The child will usually grow up to be gay, and grow out of gender dysphoria.
I usually don't comment on CZcams videos but I made an exception for this one.
I think you don't realize that you are making Butler's argument for them without realizing it, because you are eliding the concept of feminine gender with that of the female sex under the word "woman."
So on the one hand we have primary and secondary sex expression which, in humans, is linked to the X chromosome. But it is not the chromosomes themselves that determine sex amd rather the proteins they code for. Which leads to sexual presentation being something of a spectrum, and one that usually but not always corresponds to gene organization.
On the other hand you have the concepts of masculinity and femininity which are the set of behaviors and gender role stereotypes we express. We then make strong pairings between those gender concepts and the sex concepts to create a dual identity.
No one is arguing about what internal plumbing can support a geatating embryo. But that second set of concepts - that of masculinity and femininity - that's where Butler is concerned. And what the culture has done - and continues to do - is to create a strong pairing between what it defines as masculine and a male-sexed body. To be male is not just to jave the right chromosomes leading to the right cocktail of hormones and proteins to oead to the development of a penis and testes. It's all this other atuff, theae behaviors that are also expected.
But if you decinstruct that behavioral expression you fond that to be a "man" or a "woman" - that is, to be both female-bodied and feminine - is not so cleanly defined. Gender expression is even more of a spectrum than sexual expression, and what culture does is (attenpt to) coerce us into a binary consisting of these roles, a binary that is more than jist wjat you're allowed to do but encompasses identity.
Whether you agree with Butler or not, you should at oeast understand the argument before you claim it has a glaring flaw. The flaw is in your understanding of the argument you are attempting to critique.
women arent a what, they are a who, and I am woman.
How do you know who is a woman?
@@RayAlexWilliamsadult human female.
There is no fatal flaw with the clip you presented. What she said vs what you argued are different things, you straw manned her. Not that I agree with her in general, but this video isn't finding any logical flaws with the clip presented.
At what point in the video did he strawman her?
Amazingly articulate! Thank you 🙂
That's a prominent nose.
I hoped you would talk about her theories one day:) 👏
This was good. See also Zizek’s short video on YT on trans and Butler. The core contradiction of Trans is that it is totally essentialist and Cartesian - that the authentic true self is a disembodied gendered soul/identity. And yet, Butler says that gender is socially constructed - as a anti-essentialist as it gets. So the Trans ideology combines essentialism with anti-essentialism . And you end up with nonsense. It’s the philosophical equivalent of dividing by zero. Serious philosophers don’t even bother with this topic b/c is so low-level and dumb. But i get the important work you do with your video to at least throw in your 2 cents for the non-philosophers out there getting duped by nonsense. But please look into Zizek’s short 5 min clip on this topic.
You are brave!
You still idealize feminism
How?
Excellente explication, Ray Williams. Merci
You are starting to sound like an Aristotelian!
I thought this lady was supposed to be like smart or intelligent..? 🤔
Also Ray, if I may say, you're looking extra pretty in this video ❤
that moment when a random youtuber thinks he's taken down a leading academic by using biological essentialism: the most basic and inept critique of feminist theory 😂
Point out the flaw in my argument
@@RayAlexWilliams First of all I just wanted to say my original comment came across a lot nastier than I meant it to so I do apologise for that, I am genuinely interested in having a constructive conversation with you.
The short answer is that your argument is embedded in biological essentialism.
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the experience of women is inherently natural and unaltered by the society we live in, that the discrimination historically and presently faced by women targets their 'natural feminine qualities', when there is actually a lot of evidence and theory to suggest that there is no such thing as natural feminine qualities, instead behavior associated with women and men has been passed down through generations of expectations or traditions in society. A much more articulate way this is expressed is in the article 'Doing Gender' written by Candace West and Don Zimmerman in the academic journal 'Gender and Society' in 1987.
You say that gendered discrimination was targeted against females, completely failing to take into consideration how someone is deemed a women by society and how this impacts the discrimination they will face.
For instance we could explore women who were denied womanhood due to issues with their reproductive health - this could often lead to women feeling excluded and outcast from society - ultimately negatively affecting their welfare and ability to engage with life in the society they lived in. This is due to the fact that these women were unable to perform reproductive labor which was (and you could argue still is) the main 'duty' or 'function' attributed/forced onto women in society. As we can see this means that someone who identifies as and has lived and experienced their entire life as a woman was unable to engage in society similarly to their peers due to the fact that society has deemed these individuals as failing to meet the biological standards that define a woman.
However I'm sure both you and I would argue that this biologically essentialist approach fails to grasp the full picture, and that despite these woman failing to meet the standards of womanhood constructed by society at the time - they were still women.
There are other examples as well which will lay out the flaws of using a biologically essentialist framework but I thought this would be a good one to use in this context.
@@rolinti9146 "Your argument is predicated on the idea [...] that the discrimination historically and presently faced by women targets their 'natural feminine qualities'": No, Ray Williams says exactly the opposite, namely that women are discriminated against because they are FEMALE (not feminine!). There are no "natural feminine qualities", it's trans activists who want to believe that.
Biological function! Yes it is.
who fucking cares? There are logical flaws in all ideologies.
FIRST
👍
Hi, my understanding is that males can't become females but they can become girls and women, because biological sex isn't black and white. An intersex woman with XY chromosomes is biologically and chromosomally male, but she is still accepted as a girl and later in adulthood as a woman. Biological sex category ( male / female ) isn't the same as gender categories ( boy, girl, man, woman ). A woman is an adult human with characteristics associated to the female sex, this includes cis women ( biologically female with female identity ), trans women ( biologically male with female identity ) and intersex women ( biologically either as there can be many chromosomal and physical variants, with female identity ), as they all share many characteristics of the female sex. If the definition of a woman is purely XX, biological female with female reproductive organs, then that erases more people than not. The same but opposite is true for men.
Nature is diverse and makes errors, people are the ones struggling. It's is completely natural to be born cis, intersex and trans.
@@sallyhally87 Wait you said "People with sexual development disorders are still male and female, despite is being harder to judge, and it doesn't erase the fact that men and women are a sex category."
So would you argue that intersex women who are XY and biologically male are men? I don't think you looked into this well enough, you can even find some CZcams creators who are XY intersex women and they were documented as female at birth grew up as girls and into women in adulthood, even though they are biologically and chromosomally male.
EDIT:
"There is no internal sense of gender identity for the majority" I don't see how that's the case, just because most people are cis, doesn't mean they have no gender identity or an internal sense of self, it just means that they are born with a matching sex and identity so it goes unnoticed, for people who are born with mismatching sex and identity it's noticeable because it stands out to them. How do you explain trans people who are born with their internal sense of self being the opposite of their biological sex, without them being taught that that's a thing.
@@sallyhally87 I apologize but you are clearly not too informed on this topic.
Conflating biological sex and gender only causes confusion when trying to have nuanced discussions about a nuanced topic.
Intersex XY women, are biologically and genetically male, but have physically female anatomy, and develop as typical women do, but often times they don't have a womb.
There is a distinction between being male and being a man. Becoming a man is maturing into adulthood and having characteristics of an adult male.
When we say someone is a man, we are talking about people with physical characteristics of male adults. When we say someone is a boy, we're talking about physical characteristics of an adolescent male or younger.
An intersex XY woman, doesn't have physical characteristics of a male adult. She has the characteristics of a female adult, a woman.
Even scientific literature disagrees with you, it clearly says that sex is defined in 2 categories ( male / female ) not man and woman. Man and woman isn't a sex category, but it's related to sex characteristics of males and females.
Most medical and scientific communities agree that gender identity is real, globally. Where are you getting your information from? I'm, for example, from Serbia and it's the same case here as well when it comes to the medical and scientific community.
Cis is an accurate descriptor for people who have their identity aligned with their biological sex.
It's only ideological if you're denying that gender identity is a real thing, which you are indeed doing so It's pointless to argue over this particular term and I'm not interested in doing so. I understand where you stand and what you mean, and I presume you understand the same for me. As long as we know what we mean by the term, it's fine.
But yeah again, please tell me where you're getting your information from, because it's quite evidently not from the medical and scientific consensus on this.
@@sallyhally87
Exhausting. So if you had an XY intersex child, you'd bring them up as a boy and later as a man? Despite the fact that they have androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) meaning that they are resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance ( androgens )? They would develop in female-typical ways, and look female externally, but you would refer to them as males? Correct? I hope you see the issue with that, there is nothing you can do to make them develop as males, they are resistant to androgens, and androgens are responsible for male characteristics. Their bodies are only receptive to estrogens, responsible for female characteristics. Do you understand how many issues that would cause for the person if you're trying to bring them up and refer to them as a male? They'd never be able to live peacefully or normally in society. Do you see how inhumane and wrong that would be?
Not to mention, that if you're outside in the real world, you identify people based on their physical attributes. If you were asked to put people you see outside in 2 categories, male and female, you'd more than likely put intersex women and trans women in the female category, and the opposite for intersex men and trans men, because that's how we, generally observe and identify people. You would have no idea if someone is biologically male or female based on their physical attributes and secondary sex characteristics alone.
And no, we're clearly not all getting information from the same place as everyone else. Googling any of this, immediately shows your arguments are incorrect. Talking to psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, again shows your arguments are incorrect. Just look at how you're describing intersex XY women, it's weird to say the least.
@@sallyhally87 So if you had an XY intersex child, you'd bring them up as a boy and later as a man? Despite the fact that they are resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance ( androgens )? They would develop in female-typical ways, and look female externally, but you would refer to them as males? Correct? I hope you see the issue with that, there is nothing you can do to make them develop as males, they are resistant to androgens, and androgens are responsible for male characteristics. Their bodies are only receptive to estrogens, responsible for female characteristics. Do you understand how many issues that would cause for the person if you're trying to bring them up and refer to them as a male? They'd never be able to live peacefully or normally in society. Do you see how inhumane and wrong that would be?
Not to mention, that if you're outside you'd identify people based on their physical attributes.
If you were tasked to put people you see outside in 2 categories, male and female, you'd more than likely put intersex women and trans women in the female category, and the opposite for intersex men and trans men, because that's how we, generally observe and identify people. You would have no idea if someone is biologically male or female based on their physical attributes and secondary sex characteristics alone.
And we're clearly not all getting information from the same place as everyone else. Googling any of this, immediately shows your arguments are incorrect. Talking to psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, again shows your arguments are incorrect. Just look at how you're describing intersex XY women, it's weird to say the least.
With your logic, trans woman is somehow both a man and a woman and an intersex XY woman is also both a man and a woman. It's weird and confusing to say that one can be woman and also a man at the same time and inconvenient.
It's much easier to understand that trans women are biologically male and that intersex XY women are biologically male also. Not saying that they are both male and female, or both man or a woman. Although in the case of intersex people they truly can be both female and male in terms of their primary sex characteristics.
@@sallyhally87 Acknowledging that an intersex XY woman is biologically male but has female characteristics including a vagina, just not the womb, isn't lying though? It is indeed acknowledging the reality of the situation. I think you're misrepresenting my arguments here, because I'm not advocating for lying to people at all. I'm all for acknowledging our biological reality, but it's also a lived reality that, in the example of intersex XY women that they are observed and identified as women and live as such.
To really simplify my point, it's scientifically recognized that not all men are XY and not all women are XX.