If there’s a gender spectrum independent of sex then why would someone get a sex change to fit their gender? Isn’t that reinforcing the binary stereotype/labels?
There are nonbinary people, gender fluid, and I'm pretty sure a couple of others. So no, even in regards to trans people it isn't a binary. Also sex isn't a binary anyway, intersex people show that
There is not a gender spectrum. We are a bimodal species, with a teeny tiny in-between called intersex (roughly 1.7% of humanity). There exists a spectrum of biological markers that exists in both sexes. There is something like 16 different combinations of the x and y chromosome. The gender "experts" take this scientific information mentioned above and then claim that this is a material basis for their fallacious claim that there is a gender spectrum. It's all a big distortion. What they refer to as "gender identity" and "gender expression", for example, is more distortion, conflating personality traits with gender. Relativism, deconstructionism and social constructivism. These are all reductionisms that came out of postmodernism. Reductionism is the rather bad habit of reducing a whole to a part (or a set of parts). It's for intellectually lazy people, like postmodernists. To put it simply, it's all an exercise in sophistry, not truth seeking
No. These are obvious Marxist tactics attempting to mainstream this philosophy. I know you don't know this, because you obviously faked your way through passing this class; and I don't blame you because it is bullshit. If you had bothered to read the founding document of queer theory titled "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin (1984) you would find that 50% of its 30 something pages are a defense of pedophilia, child porn, and incest. The godfather of queer theory (Michel Foucault) argued the age of consent for sex down to the age of infants. I don't believe you believe these things, and this is how I know you faked your way through this class. @@chefonz06
In Victorian times blue was the colour for girls, pink for boys. The terms 'gender', 'feminine' and 'masculine' have no place outside a book of grammar. Biological organisms do not have a gender, they have a sex - female or male (apart from some invertebrate groups which are hermaphrodite) which is *determined* at conception and cannot be changed. (We know all about disorders of development - leave them out, they prove nothing.) 'Heterosexual' means 'attracted sexually to the opposite sex'. It has nothing to do with the practice of contraception. 'Hetero-' is the Greek prefix for 'different', eg 'heterogeneous'. The Greek 'homo' means 'the same' (this is not related to the Latin 'homo' for 'man'). The Queer Project's aim and mission statement is the erasure of boundaries and the abolition of categories. So, there will be no difference between good and bad, between true and false, between male and female, between adult and child. This is an attack on women's rights, homophobic and a grave danger to children. It reifies essentialism.
Sex isn't determined at conception, it's determined at birth. I challenge you to tell me the sex of a singular reproduction cell. You don't get to take an entire group of people out of a conversation that involves them without any reason given. Why don't intersex people matter in the conversation of sex? You have the entomology of heterosexual and homosexual however what this person said it's true. Heterosexual in the 1900s was originally labeled as a perversion of sex. If the categories serve as little more than an easy way to divide people, and in the case of queer people and racial minorities, used to propagate hatred and discrimination. I see no reason to keep them. It's stealing bad, yes, is stealing baby formula and diapers for your child bad even though you can't afford it, I'd say no it isn't. A distinction between good and bad is already difficult. Truth and false is something that can be tested so I fail to see where that objection comes from, also again there can be falsehoods within truth and truth within falsehoods. Again I fail to see how this is black and white already. Adults and children are decided by us. Go back several hundred years and an adult will be younger then is seen today, and it's likely to change again as it has many times in the past. I fail to see how this attacks women's rights, don't understand by what you mean homophobic, and consent laws are already a thing and I fail to see the connection between this and those laws. By the way, if you wish to protect the children I expect you to be against catholicism and the many red states that have and defend child marriage laws. I expect you to also support comprehensive sexual education since they are quite good at keeping children safe from predators.
@@isdrakon9802out off all the reports of mass looting happening in Baltimore, Chicago, and la, how many were things they needed to survive or take care of a child. You love to call major corporations greedy for increasing prices on on the products they produce, but turn around and say stealing something that isn’t yours isn’t bad or greedy.
@@goth2415 gee, I wonder why I would have more sympathy for people that often don't have much money VS the massive corporations that have millions of dollars and most likely exploit foreign people in some fashion, many times slavery or barely better than that
@@spaghettification427 And I quote: "Identity is constructed by the very expression that is said to be its results" and then it gives a definition of an internal sense of gender identity. Kind of like Sartre saying "existence precedes essence, except for that part of the essence that's inside of you already". Indeed, all of Butler is basically a poor fanfic of existentialism. But hey man if you can't understand basic contradiction then just never mind me. Enjoy the video :)
They deliberately avoid this connection. Just like they never talk about Dr John Money, the man who coined the term "gender identity", who is also a pedophile that molested his test subjects, the Reimer twins. They both ended up committing suicide due to the abuse.
@@marieparker3822 corrupting rubbish? Sociology, psychology, is rubbish? Taking a hard look at our personal assumptions doesn't make you queer or change your gender. He's not teaching them to be gay. He's teaching how to do critical thinking.
@@patricial.6758 Critical thinking based on assumptions and abstractions. Give me a break. There mere fact you accept this garbage without introspection, tells me you accept anyone thing, no matter how ridiculous. You are not critical yourself.
From a retired teacher and Principal what this bloke has got ought to be bottled. Pedagogy.the like of which is rarely seen.He passes my test of teaching excellence:be anything but never be boring.
"Respect others labels"..."We need to break away from labels"... UUHHH. If the categorization is so improper, why are people basing their own identity upon such categorization? Why expect me to "perceive/treat you as a man", when I shouldn't at all perceive "man" as anything? Masculinity/Femininity exist as the "norm" social behaviors of males/females. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Males can be feminine, females masculine. But there is no "identity" to "man" or "woman", for ANYONE. As such aren't categories of identity. As you yourself argued.
This is a Marxist tactic to over complicate things so only THEY can explain. Have you ever heard them explain anything well? No. That's on purpose. They are exploiting your empathy.
The theory is that categorization does not come from reality, but rather constructs reality - The whole point of saying "We need to break away from labels" is to remove from conceptualization any notion that there are particularly epistemological norms for the creation/use of concepts. On this view, conceptualization is done in full freedom (that is, not based in anything outside of itself), leaving it fully free to feel the full force of specifically moral norms - You must respect other's labels BECAUSE you have no excuse in "but that's not right" to deny them their request. It is because they are without meaning (no intensionality-world-directed) / have only social meaning (they mean their-having-been-socially-constructed and nothing else), that you have no excuse to deny another's label-request, that is, to socially construct reality to satisfy their will/desire/need There is no standpoint outside of society from which to stand against it, as any such standpoint would itself be socially constructed (and thus subject to only moral norms).
@@jeffreyscott4997 You don't have to respect others labels because the labels are labels of a broader classification beyond themselves. Thus they have no ownership to such itself, it is socially constructed. You can claim personal labels, like a name. You don't get to claim labels that are applicable to a broader idea beyond yourself. Because to do such would claim that you individually own how others need to perceive and use this classification label. You're manipulating how they perceive a "label" that goes beyond yourself, while trying to claim it's just about you. But that can't be the case when the label is shared amonst others for various other reasons. Others don't have the power to say "but that's not right". But you have no right to say it is right, either. The idea is that people can freely disagree, because NO ONE has authority toward determining such themselves.
@@apieceofschmittAt which point it would be best to ask why you are taking the stance of it "being wrong" when it's clearly neither. The best response in which case would be ambivilance. Seeing as the rejection of someones gender identity often results in contributing to societal intolerance and depression and suicidal ideation in the individual, it seems strange that rejection would be the ideal response. It somewhat smells of a lack of empathy, backed up by years of the raw assumption that the status quo of gender identity is correct as it is, while trying to plug one's ears when evidence of the contrary--transgender people--appear, often to the effect of damaging those people's quality of life. I think a lot of issues like this can be solved with just a basic consideration of being decent to your fellow human being, no? You have your right to disagree, but it's worth recognising the fact that you doing so, negatively impacts the one you disagree on the identity of, for the only reason of upholding one's own subjective view of reality.
@@fairsaa7975 I can't be ambivalent toward irrational prejudice. It's wrong because it makes wide assumptions of the "group" as to even claim oneself a part of such. And I view such a conclusion as both illogical as well as immoral. I'm not rejecting one's personal identity, I'm rejecting one attempting to leverage a group classification. A NARCISSTIC claim that specifically requires something from society (how others need to treat or perceive you), a form of oppression. And sure, narcissists feel harmed by disagreement. But simply catering to them to avoid such is not a righteous act. It's weakness and blindness to the harm such a view itself can have on one's own self-identity as well as society as a whole. Maybe part of the harm they deal with comes from a WEAK sense of self-respect, outside affirmation from others. There is no status quo of gender identity. Gender identity is a NEW phenomena being claimed to be personally defined. People don't have their "gender" assigned at birth. Society observes sexes and has classified social norms (masculine/feminine) around such sexes. And there is also a function of society that wishes for people to ABIDE by those norms. But such negatively impacts ANYONE outside that norm. There are many more non-transgender people suffering from gender norms than transgender people. And simply "self-identifying" away from such societal norms is not at all a function of why they are applied in the first place. It appears many gender identity theorists don't understand the current framework. They falsely apply a perception of the world as to conclude it "cisnormative" and misgender people by assuming them cisgender, rather than forming social identities to such language based on sex. If "man" is now a "gender identity", you are putting a huge majority of men into an identity crisis. If they are no longer men simply for being males, what makes them a man? ARE they a man? So these people put up defenses to keep their own sense of identity to the group "man", to defend that a man is male, which fits their understanding of such a collective identity. Have you considered this? It appears instead many seek to misgender people by claiming them cisgender and bigoted against transgender people for simply having their own self-identity to something else besides gender. We are dealing with CONTRADICTORY conditions of language and societal segmentation. Things that exist beyond the individual that is to have COMMON understanding amongst us as a collective. Here's an honest question. Why did transgender people attempt to co-opt language the majority associate with sex, to express their gender identity? Why not use new language? It's because they wish to abuse a sex-based establishment and believe they can simply self-identify into the group and receive the norms of that group. To leverage a societal condition that has nothing to do with personal preference. Their pursuit is an irrational act. Yes, many transgender people at least attempt to make it rational, through attempting to change their sex in the strongest way they can, to seek to "pass" and be perceived as the opposite sex. But I'd defining these people more so as transexuals, rather than the transgender people who make it much more about personal identity than a form societal observation and conformity. And for some reason "both sides" attempt to conflate these VERY DISTINCT people as the same. Twisting "sex" to be something one can transition into as observed by others, is a very different proposal than simply replacing sex with a distinct concept of gender identity, which remains personally defined and isn't to be a matter of societal identity that requires actual confirmation/acceptance.
Why didn't you touch on Queer Theory's defense of pedophilia, incest, or child pornography? Its literally one-half of "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin's founding document on the subject. I don't think you studied for this very hard. Maybe you just needed to play along to get a grade, but how can you give any education on a subject without pointing out that queer theory approves of pedophilia, incest, and child porn?
Too much misinformation. Respectfully brotha, let me explain: 1. The shape of the man and woman are based on body structure. Men are more rectangular (hence the block structure of the body), where women are curvy (the angular lines making the dress). 2. A little over 100 years ago, red was considered masculine and blue was considered feminine. Somewhere the colors were flipped. 3. "Queer" was appropriated. It was originally a synonym for "odd/different." It had no relevance to sexuality nor gender. A boy or a girl can be considered as both. Furthermore, if you were a kid in the 80s at grade school, you may have played the game "Smear the Queer." For those who don't know, it was just a modified game of football, where one runs with the ball for as long as they hold it trying to avoid getting tackled by everyone else. But when the queer gives up the ball, everyone else tries to grab it to be the new "queer." So what is a queer? I can define it. All you have to do is go to high school and at lunch time, document where each social groups hangs out and look for the patterns. They weren't the atypical "nerd." They may look like one, but their grades says otherwise in most cases. They weren't socially popular, nor athletic. They were the social outcasts sitting in their secluded corner, the kids at lunch time playing video games in the computer lab and the kids collecting comic books when doing such wasn't cool long before Iron Man made reading them mainstream. And the queer seems to always have an obsessive fascination with everything Asian, especially manga and anime. Observe the type of students at a Japanese language class at a community college and you will see there is something common among 90% of the students. Overall, they mostly go through life forever holding the football. Some sprout out of it like the ugly duckling that becomes a swan. Case and point: Lil Jon. Look at his high school pic and him now. He would be considered queer until whatever transformed him between then and fame.
As someone who was a kid in the 80s, "queer"was definitely used as a derogatory term for homosexual men. You're conflating a bunch of things out of context.
I think you did an awesome job explaining queer theory as postulated by Judith Butler. I took a similar course in college where we discussed this author and others, and it was not easy reading, so hat's off! You seemed to be excited, as am I, that people be educated about a subject, even if they don't change their minds on it. Hope you're still teaching and working with youth.
All these teachings and the ones that developed this theory is strongly tied to the defense of pedophiles, this is also not rooted in any concrete science....feelings arent facts, the Gov't propagates these lies to keep us confused and divided as a nation. When you have a part of the population disillusioned about reality, and the other condemned for not believing in nonsense you can do whatever you want...this man shouldnt be anywhere near children, if you think talking about socially rooted teachings with children you're already a child threat, you should be in jail or worse
Queer theory is in direct opposition to the heteronormative values of society. It posits the idea that anyone’s sexuality and sexual preferences are just as valid as the oppressive heterosexual ones. It will not stop until every type of sexual preference is socially acceptable, these preferences maybe seen by heterosexual oppressors as perversions. Those pushing this theory believe the existing moral values are not inclusive of none heterosexual people and see themselves as agents of change who use the dialect and direct action to normalise all sexual preferences including the sexual love of children, relatives and even animals. These things today are seen as perversions by the oppressive heteronormative society but queer activists believe this current system has to evolve to meet their demands. Someone tell me I’m wrong in my summary
@@chefonz06 cool, I’m a gay guy and this shit isn’t helping. We don’t need academic secular-religious horseshit and word games that collapses with gentle prodding to justify existing, it’s fine to just say we’re people like everyone else. Stop doing this.
maybe another way to phrase it is, putting labels on or assuming people's labels is bad, but finding a label that truly expresses who you are can be validating and liberating. Like people assumed I was the wrong gender and sexuality most my life (that created a lot of unnecessary mental emotional conflict I had to keep to myself being raised to think there is only male of female and if you are one you must be attracted to the other), but when I finally got the vocab to describe who I actually was it was game changing, immediately relieving, affirming, etc. If "man" and "woman" work for you that is fine, but those terms don't fit everybody and there is no reason for nonconforming people to have to pretend they are one of those when simply adding some vocab can allow us to exist authentically. Same goes for people's orientation. Assuming everyone is heterosexual is not a reasonable way to label a diverse society. Finally having terms like gay, bi, pan, ace, etc. can be very relieving and validating.
@sickwolf1559 Because the founding document for Queer Theory is "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin and half of the entire essay is a defense of pedophilia, incest, and child porn.
The implicit metaphysics underlying the entire thought-form here is deeply contrary to common sense. It is fundamentally a dejected Neo-Platonism that sees all the "proper" standards of "reason" as not being met. They think that the average person is incorrectly positing a "real binary" - read, there are two mind-independent forms that manifest, when they engage in classification (ie. judge being vs. non-being). But this is false, common sense is not Platonic Realist (western common sense is Aristotelian, not Platonic). These thinkers are completely out in left field in positing that language is being, in their eyes incorrectly, used in the manner (by their opponents) that they think. You're either a Platonic Realist, who thinks they can get to a world outside of description, or you're an Absolute Nominalist, who can't get outside of description to any kind of mind-independent world. A false dichotomy.
@@chefonz06 lmao nah bruh. This new age thought on gender and sex being separate is the farthest thing from science. Males are men and females are women. Personal expression is subjective and has zero to do with reality. Humans beings have personality traits and temperaments. If a male feels like a “woman” they are identifying with feminine temperaments and personality traits. And that is a beautiful thing. All humans and their temperaments should be treated with love, compassion, and respect. But reality does not change based on someone’s inner subjective and localized feelings. There are men and then there are women. That can not be changed. Everyone should be encouraged to express themselves how they want. But to teach this as some new age pseudoscience is reprehensible and to put these ideas as facts and common place ideas into impressionable students is just the most immoral thing I’ve seen in university
Listening to hate is a terrible idea. Folks that want to detransition should have the opportunity to detransition just like those seeking to transition should have the opportunity. It seems crazy to me how people have been going after the rights of children despite that being the safest time to transition AND detransition.
Queer theory is in direct opposition to the heteronormative values of society. It posits the idea that anyone’s sexuality and sexual preferences are just as valid as the oppressive heterosexual ones. It will not stop until every type of sexual preference is ok, these preferences maybe seen by heterosexual oppressors as perversions. Those pushing this theory believe the existing moral values are not inclusive of none heterosexual people and see themselves as agents of change who use the dialect and direct action to normalise all sexual preferences including the sexual love of children, relatives and even animals. These things today are seen as perversions by the oppressive heteronormative society but queer activists believe this current system has to evolve to meet their demands. This dude never mentions any of this. Someone tell me I’m wrong in my summary
If there’s a gender spectrum independent of sex then why would someone get a sex change to fit their gender? Isn’t that reinforcing the binary stereotype/labels?
There are nonbinary people, gender fluid, and I'm pretty sure a couple of others. So no, even in regards to trans people it isn't a binary. Also sex isn't a binary anyway, intersex people show that
What you said makes sense, however irrational people left stupid responses
@@isdrakon9802A presence of developmental anomaly doesn't negate that humans are sexually dimorphic species.
You’re thinking logically. That won’t work with any woke nonsense.
There is not a gender spectrum. We are a bimodal species, with a teeny tiny in-between called intersex (roughly 1.7% of humanity). There exists a spectrum of biological markers that exists in both sexes. There is something like 16 different combinations of the x and y chromosome.
The gender "experts" take this scientific information mentioned above and then claim that this is a material basis for their fallacious claim that there is a gender spectrum. It's all a big distortion. What they refer to as "gender identity" and "gender expression", for example, is more distortion, conflating personality traits with gender.
Relativism, deconstructionism and social constructivism. These are all reductionisms that came out of postmodernism. Reductionism is the rather bad habit of reducing a whole to a part (or a set of parts). It's for intellectually lazy people, like postmodernists.
To put it simply, it's all an exercise in sophistry, not truth seeking
So generalizations are used to define gender yet generalizations shouldn't be used to define anyone? I don't get it.
Neither do they.
I understand your frustration. Yet, it’s just as simple as asking someone’s pronouns without making assumptions.
No. These are obvious Marxist tactics attempting to mainstream this philosophy. I know you don't know this, because you obviously faked your way through passing this class; and I don't blame you because it is bullshit. If you had bothered to read the founding document of queer theory titled "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin (1984) you would find that 50% of its 30 something pages are a defense of pedophilia, child porn, and incest. The godfather of queer theory (Michel Foucault) argued the age of consent for sex down to the age of infants. I don't believe you believe these things, and this is how I know you faked your way through this class. @@chefonz06
@chefonz06 Nah this is all postmodern bs. Social constructivist epistemology. Childhood innocence is a social construct too you. I hope you're proud
In Victorian times blue was the colour for girls, pink for boys.
The terms 'gender', 'feminine' and 'masculine' have no place outside a book of grammar. Biological organisms do not have a gender, they have a sex - female or male (apart from some invertebrate groups which are hermaphrodite) which is *determined* at conception and cannot be changed. (We know all about disorders of development - leave them out, they prove nothing.) 'Heterosexual' means 'attracted sexually to the opposite sex'. It has nothing to do with the practice of contraception. 'Hetero-' is the Greek prefix for 'different', eg 'heterogeneous'. The Greek 'homo' means 'the same' (this is not related to the Latin 'homo' for 'man'). The Queer Project's aim and mission statement is the erasure of boundaries and the abolition of categories. So, there will be no difference between good and bad, between true and false, between male and female, between adult and child. This is an attack on women's rights, homophobic and a grave danger to children. It reifies essentialism.
When everyone is super, no one will be.
Sex isn't determined at conception, it's determined at birth. I challenge you to tell me the sex of a singular reproduction cell.
You don't get to take an entire group of people out of a conversation that involves them without any reason given. Why don't intersex people matter in the conversation of sex?
You have the entomology of heterosexual and homosexual however what this person said it's true. Heterosexual in the 1900s was originally labeled as a perversion of sex.
If the categories serve as little more than an easy way to divide people, and in the case of queer people and racial minorities, used to propagate hatred and discrimination. I see no reason to keep them.
It's stealing bad, yes, is stealing baby formula and diapers for your child bad even though you can't afford it, I'd say no it isn't. A distinction between good and bad is already difficult. Truth and false is something that can be tested so I fail to see where that objection comes from, also again there can be falsehoods within truth and truth within falsehoods. Again I fail to see how this is black and white already. Adults and children are decided by us. Go back several hundred years and an adult will be younger then is seen today, and it's likely to change again as it has many times in the past.
I fail to see how this attacks women's rights, don't understand by what you mean homophobic, and consent laws are already a thing and I fail to see the connection between this and those laws. By the way, if you wish to protect the children I expect you to be against catholicism and the many red states that have and defend child marriage laws. I expect you to also support comprehensive sexual education since they are quite good at keeping children safe from predators.
Concise and accurate 👍
@@isdrakon9802out off all the reports of mass looting happening in Baltimore, Chicago, and la, how many were things they needed to survive or take care of a child. You love to call major corporations greedy for increasing prices on on the products they produce, but turn around and say stealing something that isn’t yours isn’t bad or greedy.
@@goth2415 gee, I wonder why I would have more sympathy for people that often don't have much money VS the massive corporations that have millions of dollars and most likely exploit foreign people in some fashion, many times slavery or barely better than that
On the whiteboard: "There is no identity behind the expression of gender"
Literally directly below: *a definition of gender identity*
Yes, it's all a sham. An exercise in thought distortion.
Gender expression is not the same as gender identity
@@spaghettification427 Says gender identity right below gender expression
@@tommm4989And they are very clearly underlined and colored to indicate that they are separate terms
@@spaghettification427 And I quote: "Identity is constructed by the very expression that is said to be its results"
and then it gives a definition of an internal sense of gender identity.
Kind of like Sartre saying "existence precedes essence, except for that part of the essence that's inside of you already".
Indeed, all of Butler is basically a poor fanfic of existentialism.
But hey man if you can't understand basic contradiction then just never mind me. Enjoy the video :)
Are you going to teach your students about Judith Butler's support for pedophilia and Queer Theory's many links with it?
Queer theory jeopardy.
czcams.com/video/PJsf5QY12rg/video.html
They deliberately avoid this connection. Just like they never talk about Dr John Money, the man who coined the term "gender identity", who is also a pedophile that molested his test subjects, the Reimer twins. They both ended up committing suicide due to the abuse.
I don't see any comments here lecturing about how righteous it is. Wonder why?
This right here
I wish i had a class like this growing up! So well taught
Davis Hilton thank you so much! Glad I was able to provide this information and I’m also blessed to have learned so much from taking this course.
It was a load of pernicious garbage. It is appalling to think of young students being fed this corrupting rubbish.
I hope there is lots of videos. This is hot.
@@marieparker3822 corrupting rubbish? Sociology, psychology, is rubbish? Taking a hard look at our personal assumptions doesn't make you queer or change your gender. He's not teaching them to be gay. He's teaching how to do critical thinking.
@@patricial.6758 Critical thinking based on assumptions and abstractions. Give me a break. There mere fact you accept this garbage without introspection, tells me you accept anyone thing, no matter how ridiculous. You are not critical yourself.
From a retired teacher and Principal what this bloke has got ought to be bottled. Pedagogy.the like of which is rarely seen.He passes my test of teaching excellence:be anything but never be boring.
But he's not teaching anything real you fucking idiot... you probably think Charles Manson is a brilliant professor.
This presentation was awesome! I learned so much. I took some notes for my discussion forum 😅
Awesome! Thank you! I'm glad I could help!
I'm so glad you did! It's all about educating one another! That's what makes the world a better place!
That this is a college class is beyond ridiculous. What a waste of taxpayer money and tuition.
amazing video! Your teaching was really digestable and had me laughing out loud. Thanks for making this
Very educational in a not boring way❤️ my prof really picked a great video❤️
"Respect others labels"..."We need to break away from labels"... UUHHH. If the categorization is so improper, why are people basing their own identity upon such categorization? Why expect me to "perceive/treat you as a man", when I shouldn't at all perceive "man" as anything? Masculinity/Femininity exist as the "norm" social behaviors of males/females. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Males can be feminine, females masculine. But there is no "identity" to "man" or "woman", for ANYONE. As such aren't categories of identity. As you yourself argued.
This is a Marxist tactic to over complicate things so only THEY can explain. Have you ever heard them explain anything well? No. That's on purpose. They are exploiting your empathy.
The theory is that categorization does not come from reality, but rather constructs reality - The whole point of saying "We need to break away from labels" is to remove from conceptualization any notion that there are particularly epistemological norms for the creation/use of concepts. On this view, conceptualization is done in full freedom (that is, not based in anything outside of itself), leaving it fully free to feel the full force of specifically moral norms - You must respect other's labels BECAUSE you have no excuse in "but that's not right" to deny them their request. It is because they are without meaning (no intensionality-world-directed) / have only social meaning (they mean their-having-been-socially-constructed and nothing else), that you have no excuse to deny another's label-request, that is, to socially construct reality to satisfy their will/desire/need There is no standpoint outside of society from which to stand against it, as any such standpoint would itself be socially constructed (and thus subject to only moral norms).
@@jeffreyscott4997 You don't have to respect others labels because the labels are labels of a broader classification beyond themselves. Thus they have no ownership to such itself, it is socially constructed.
You can claim personal labels, like a name. You don't get to claim labels that are applicable to a broader idea beyond yourself. Because to do such would claim that you individually own how others need to perceive and use this classification label.
You're manipulating how they perceive a "label" that goes beyond yourself, while trying to claim it's just about you. But that can't be the case when the label is shared amonst others for various other reasons.
Others don't have the power to say "but that's not right". But you have no right to say it is right, either. The idea is that people can freely disagree, because NO ONE has authority toward determining such themselves.
@@apieceofschmittAt which point it would be best to ask why you are taking the stance of it "being wrong" when it's clearly neither. The best response in which case would be ambivilance.
Seeing as the rejection of someones gender identity often results in contributing to societal intolerance and depression and suicidal ideation in the individual, it seems strange that rejection would be the ideal response.
It somewhat smells of a lack of empathy, backed up by years of the raw assumption that the status quo of gender identity is correct as it is, while trying to plug one's ears when evidence of the contrary--transgender people--appear, often to the effect of damaging those people's quality of life.
I think a lot of issues like this can be solved with just a basic consideration of being decent to your fellow human being, no? You have your right to disagree, but it's worth recognising the fact that you doing so, negatively impacts the one you disagree on the identity of, for the only reason of upholding one's own subjective view of reality.
@@fairsaa7975 I can't be ambivalent toward irrational prejudice. It's wrong because it makes wide assumptions of the "group" as to even claim oneself a part of such. And I view such a conclusion as both illogical as well as immoral.
I'm not rejecting one's personal identity, I'm rejecting one attempting to leverage a group classification. A NARCISSTIC claim that specifically requires something from society (how others need to treat or perceive you), a form of oppression. And sure, narcissists feel harmed by disagreement. But simply catering to them to avoid such is not a righteous act. It's weakness and blindness to the harm such a view itself can have on one's own self-identity as well as society as a whole. Maybe part of the harm they deal with comes from a WEAK sense of self-respect, outside affirmation from others.
There is no status quo of gender identity. Gender identity is a NEW phenomena being claimed to be personally defined. People don't have their "gender" assigned at birth. Society observes sexes and has classified social norms (masculine/feminine) around such sexes. And there is also a function of society that wishes for people to ABIDE by those norms. But such negatively impacts ANYONE outside that norm. There are many more non-transgender people suffering from gender norms than transgender people. And simply "self-identifying" away from such societal norms is not at all a function of why they are applied in the first place. It appears many gender identity theorists don't understand the current framework. They falsely apply a perception of the world as to conclude it "cisnormative" and misgender people by assuming them cisgender, rather than forming social identities to such language based on sex.
If "man" is now a "gender identity", you are putting a huge majority of men into an identity crisis. If they are no longer men simply for being males, what makes them a man? ARE they a man? So these people put up defenses to keep their own sense of identity to the group "man", to defend that a man is male, which fits their understanding of such a collective identity. Have you considered this? It appears instead many seek to misgender people by claiming them cisgender and bigoted against transgender people for simply having their own self-identity to something else besides gender.
We are dealing with CONTRADICTORY conditions of language and societal segmentation. Things that exist beyond the individual that is to have COMMON understanding amongst us as a collective.
Here's an honest question. Why did transgender people attempt to co-opt language the majority associate with sex, to express their gender identity? Why not use new language? It's because they wish to abuse a sex-based establishment and believe they can simply self-identify into the group and receive the norms of that group. To leverage a societal condition that has nothing to do with personal preference. Their pursuit is an irrational act.
Yes, many transgender people at least attempt to make it rational, through attempting to change their sex in the strongest way they can, to seek to "pass" and be perceived as the opposite sex. But I'd defining these people more so as transexuals, rather than the transgender people who make it much more about personal identity than a form societal observation and conformity. And for some reason "both sides" attempt to conflate these VERY DISTINCT people as the same.
Twisting "sex" to be something one can transition into as observed by others, is a very different proposal than simply replacing sex with a distinct concept of gender identity, which remains personally defined and isn't to be a matter of societal identity that requires actual confirmation/acceptance.
You are an amazing teacher. Thank you for enlightening me and the individuals in this video.
dude... no one is going to confuse you for a ze zer.
Thank you for this, this is wonderful. And it's so nice to hear your students having fun with you and enjoying your class :)
Why didn't you touch on Queer Theory's defense of pedophilia, incest, or child pornography? Its literally one-half of "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin's founding document on the subject. I don't think you studied for this very hard. Maybe you just needed to play along to get a grade, but how can you give any education on a subject without pointing out that queer theory approves of pedophilia, incest, and child porn?
I appreciate this video. Thank You.
Hopefully you appreciate it because you now understand how you're being deceived
I "feel" like a 5 years old child theses days, should I express myself like one in order to change the fact that I'm an 6'2 male adult?
Too much misinformation. Respectfully brotha, let me explain:
1. The shape of the man and woman are based on body structure. Men are more rectangular (hence the block structure of the body), where women are curvy (the angular lines making the dress).
2. A little over 100 years ago, red was considered masculine and blue was considered feminine. Somewhere the colors were flipped.
3. "Queer" was appropriated. It was originally a synonym for "odd/different." It had no relevance to sexuality nor gender. A boy or a girl can be considered as both. Furthermore, if you were a kid in the 80s at grade school, you may have played the game "Smear the Queer." For those who don't know, it was just a modified game of football, where one runs with the ball for as long as they hold it trying to avoid getting tackled by everyone else. But when the queer gives up the ball, everyone else tries to grab it to be the new "queer."
So what is a queer? I can define it. All you have to do is go to high school and at lunch time, document where each social groups hangs out and look for the patterns. They weren't the atypical "nerd." They may look like one, but their grades says otherwise in most cases. They weren't socially popular, nor athletic. They were the social outcasts sitting in their secluded corner, the kids at lunch time playing video games in the computer lab and the kids collecting comic books when doing such wasn't cool long before Iron Man made reading them mainstream. And the queer seems to always have an obsessive fascination with everything Asian, especially manga and anime. Observe the type of students at a Japanese language class at a community college and you will see there is something common among 90% of the students. Overall, they mostly go through life forever holding the football. Some sprout out of it like the ugly duckling that becomes a swan. Case and point: Lil Jon. Look at his high school pic and him now. He would be considered queer until whatever transformed him between then and fame.
I went to school in the 80's and everyone knew queer was pejorative for gays.
As someone who was a kid in the 80s, "queer"was definitely used as a derogatory term for homosexual men. You're conflating a bunch of things out of context.
@@matthewatwood8641 I was in the 80s and we weren't calling guys queers. We would just call them British cigarettes.
@@Murderface666 😆
Thank you sir!,
Love it. Great Presentation!!!
I think you did an awesome job explaining queer theory as postulated by Judith Butler. I took a similar course in college where we discussed this author and others, and it was not easy reading, so hat's off! You seemed to be excited, as am I, that people be educated about a subject, even if they don't change their minds on it. Hope you're still teaching and working with youth.
Oh the one that advocated for pedophiles, you people truely are sick
All these teachings and the ones that developed this theory is strongly tied to the defense of pedophiles, this is also not rooted in any concrete science....feelings arent facts, the Gov't propagates these lies to keep us confused and divided as a nation. When you have a part of the population disillusioned about reality, and the other condemned for not believing in nonsense you can do whatever you want...this man shouldnt be anywhere near children, if you think talking about socially rooted teachings with children you're already a child threat, you should be in jail or worse
Queer Theory founding document is "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin. Half of it is a defense of pedophilia, incest, and child porn. True story.
I appreciate your kind words! Thank you so much!!
Why are you defending pedophilia?@@chefonz06
You deserve more subscribers Sir❤️
Thank You!
How is queer theory not all about labels? How many "genders" are there now?
Queer theory is in direct opposition to the heteronormative values of society.
It posits the idea that anyone’s sexuality and sexual preferences are just as valid as the oppressive heterosexual ones. It will not stop until every type of sexual preference is socially acceptable, these preferences maybe seen by heterosexual oppressors as perversions.
Those pushing this theory believe the existing moral values are not inclusive of none heterosexual people and see themselves as agents of change who use the dialect and direct action to normalise all sexual preferences including the sexual love of children, relatives and even animals.
These things today are seen as perversions by the oppressive heteronormative society but queer activists believe this current system has to evolve to meet their demands.
Someone tell me I’m wrong in my summary
Check out James Lindsay's writings on queer theory
What a great teacher!
Soon as he said his pronouns, i knew it would be woke trash.
Labeling is bad. But now tell me….are you L, G, B, T, Q, I, or A?
I am a cis-gender, Heterosexual male who's an allie and safe zone for students, family and friends
@@chefonz06 cool, I’m a gay guy and this shit isn’t helping. We don’t need academic secular-religious horseshit and word games that collapses with gentle prodding to justify existing, it’s fine to just say we’re people like everyone else. Stop doing this.
Amen brother
maybe another way to phrase it is, putting labels on or assuming people's labels is bad, but finding a label that truly expresses who you are can be validating and liberating. Like people assumed I was the wrong gender and sexuality most my life (that created a lot of unnecessary mental emotional conflict I had to keep to myself being raised to think there is only male of female and if you are one you must be attracted to the other), but when I finally got the vocab to describe who I actually was it was game changing, immediately relieving, affirming, etc. If "man" and "woman" work for you that is fine, but those terms don't fit everybody and there is no reason for nonconforming people to have to pretend they are one of those when simply adding some vocab can allow us to exist authentically. Same goes for people's orientation. Assuming everyone is heterosexual is not a reasonable way to label a diverse society. Finally having terms like gay, bi, pan, ace, etc. can be very relieving and validating.
why is it so short?
the point about hemophilia was really interesting
we are doomed.
What?
Real
you misspelled binary (bionary?) what kind of college professor are you?
Pls come back to make more videos!!!
your handwriting is beautiful
Thanks for posting :)
Brilliant.
natural woman was written by carole king. a white singer. nice try
Pure nonsense.
@sickwolf1559 Because the founding document for Queer Theory is "Thinking Sex" by Gayle Rubin and half of the entire essay is a defense of pedophilia, incest, and child porn.
The implicit metaphysics underlying the entire thought-form here is deeply contrary to common sense. It is fundamentally a dejected Neo-Platonism that sees all the "proper" standards of "reason" as not being met. They think that the average person is incorrectly positing a "real binary" - read, there are two mind-independent forms that manifest, when they engage in classification (ie. judge being vs. non-being). But this is false, common sense is not Platonic Realist (western common sense is Aristotelian, not Platonic). These thinkers are completely out in left field in positing that language is being, in their eyes incorrectly, used in the manner (by their opponents) that they think.
You're either a Platonic Realist, who thinks they can get to a world outside of description, or you're an Absolute Nominalist, who can't get outside of description to any kind of mind-independent world. A false dichotomy.
@@jeffreyscott4997 That's a whole lot of words to say nothing.
Absolute nonsense
Great job in indoctrinating young impressionable youngsters with pseudoscientific ideological bs. At least give them an antithesis to compare it to
So toxic masculinity is cap?
Gentle not weak
I pray to God this isn’t being taught in public schools.
My only question for you is would you prefer this to be taught in private and charter schools instead?
@@chefonz06 brainlet response
@@chefonz06 lmao nah bruh. This new age thought on gender and sex being separate is the farthest thing from science. Males are men and females are women. Personal expression is subjective and has zero to do with reality. Humans beings have personality traits and temperaments. If a male feels like a “woman” they are identifying with feminine temperaments and personality traits. And that is a beautiful thing. All humans and their temperaments should be treated with love, compassion, and respect. But reality does not change based on someone’s inner subjective and localized feelings. There are men and then there are women. That can not be changed. Everyone should be encouraged to express themselves how they want. But to teach this as some new age pseudoscience is reprehensible and to put these ideas as facts and common place ideas into impressionable students is just the most immoral thing I’ve seen in university
It shouldn't be taught at all
Truth is undigestable.
Deconstructing gender is a terrible idea.
Why?
@@norrinRadd2149 Because intersectionals can’t even define what a woman or man is. This is basic biology, and intersectionals can’t compute.
@@norrinRadd2149 it's a foundational aspect of society which is why the Left want to destroy it.
@@norrinRadd2149 Listen to Detransitioners.
Listening to hate is a terrible idea. Folks that want to detransition should have the opportunity to detransition just like those seeking to transition should have the opportunity.
It seems crazy to me how people have been going after the rights of children despite that being the safest time to transition AND detransition.
Nice try satan. Nice try gays.
Pseudo intellect and fake discipline
Demonic
Queer theory is in direct opposition to the heteronormative values of society.
It posits the idea that anyone’s sexuality and sexual preferences are just as valid as the oppressive heterosexual ones. It will not stop until every type of sexual preference is ok, these preferences maybe seen by heterosexual oppressors as perversions.
Those pushing this theory believe the existing moral values are not inclusive of none heterosexual people and see themselves as agents of change who use the dialect and direct action to normalise all sexual preferences including the sexual love of children, relatives and even animals.
These things today are seen as perversions by the oppressive heteronormative society but queer activists believe this current system has to evolve to meet their demands.
This dude never mentions any of this.
Someone tell me I’m wrong in my summary