Rhetorical flourishes is it?
Judith Butler has a crappy predictable abusive piece in the Guardian complaining of a “backlash” over sacred Gender.
The attacks on so-called “gender ideology” have grown in recent years throughout the world, dominating public debate stoked by electronic networks and backed by extensive rightwing Catholic and evangelical organizations. Although not always in accord, these groups concur that the traditional family is under attack, that children in the classroom are being indoctrinated to become homosexuals, and that “gender” is a dangerous, if not diabolical, ideology threatening to destroy families, local cultures, civilization, and even “man” himself.
Meanwhile, in the real world, feminist women object to being shoved aside and told to shut up by men who claim to be women.
It is not easy to fully reconstruct the arguments used by the anti-gender ideology movement because they do not hold themselves to standards of consistency or coherence.
That’s just a quite vulgar lie. She’s choosing to treat conservative anti-feminists as in the same “movement” as gender critical feminists, which she has to know perfectly well is a lie.
They assemble and launch incendiary claims in order to defeat what they see as “gender ideology” or “gender studies” by any rhetorical means necessary. For instance, they object to “gender” because it putatively denies biological sex or because it undermines the natural or divine character of the heteronormative family.
Well yes “or” as in those are completely different sets of people. Speaking of any rhetorical means necessary. She has no shame.
lthough nationalist, transphobic, misogynist, and homophobic, the principal aim of the movement is to reverse progressive legislation won in the last decades by both LGBTQI and feminist movements.
Another lie.
Anti-gender movements are not just reactionary but fascist trends, the kind that support increasingly authoritarian governments. The inconsistency of their arguments and their equal opportunity approach to rhetorical strategies of the left and right, produce a confusing discourse for some, a compelling one for others. But they are typical of fascist movements that twist rationality to suit hyper-nationalist aims.
A whole crowd of lies there.
In his well-known list of the elements of fascism, Umberto Eco writes, “the fascist game can be played in many forms,” for fascism is “a collage … a beehive of contradictions”. Indeed, this perfectly describes anti-gender ideology today. It is a reactionary incitement, an incendiary bundle of contradictory and incoherent claims and accusations.
She says, inciting people to think feminist women are fascists.
There are three more paragraphs of bullshit about fascism, concluding with “The time for anti-fascist solidarity is now.” What a revolting lying fraud she is.
“They fear that men will lose their dominant positions or become fatally diminished if we start thinking along gender lines.”
“lose their dominant positions”?
“Cough” Caitlyn Jenner.
“Cough” Laurel Hubbard.
“Cough” Charlotte Clymer.
“Cough” Pips Bunce.
“the intersex movement, which has shown how vexed and consequential sex assignment can be.”
Actually, Professor Butler, several “intersex” people, or people with differences in sex development, have written how they are different from trans people, and how they resent being co-opted by supporters of gender self-identification, especially being depicted as a “third sex”.
There’s a good essay about this from a woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome:
https://differently-normal.com/2020/06/10/example-post-3/
Meanwhile, I can only quote the terrible UK sitcom “On The Buses” and say:
“I ‘ate you, Butler!”
Butler is doing a lot of projecting there. Shameless. Reading her saying that her opponents “do not hold themselves to standards of consistency or coherence” made me sneer.
Two separate admissions that there are two completely different factions opposed to gender identity theory, yet she continues to treat the entire opposition as far right religious fundamentalists.
Therefore… all disparate groups fascism? K.
Wow, literally none of this is true. I am so embarrassed for people who write this kind of thing.
And the Guardian should be embarrassed for publishing it.
Yes. Now that you mention it, any fule can write some dumb garbage, but the Guardian has a responsibility to vet what comes out under their masthead.
The Guardian proudly follows in the footsteps of the US Army: Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on ability. – Tom Lehrer.
Pure projection. I’m not a “scholar” or “philosopher” by profession, but I think I could present the arguments of GC feminists pretty well. Maybe their language is too clear and straightforward for Butler to twist, or even understand.
The real problem, and I think Butler knows it, is that many GC objections and critiques of gender ideology and trans activism are simply unanswerable. “No debate!” is a strategy to avoid having to respond to critics of TA claims and demands disguised as some high-ground position of hallowed principal, moral superiority and righteousness.
I bet Ceri Black might have some questions for Judith Butler. Now there’s an interview I would love to see.
Inherently dishonest and deliberately oblivious. She takes potshots at socio-religious conservatives, and then simply declares GCF to be their allies (rather than acknowledge that GCFs were one of the first groups to directly challenge the SRC position on gender in the first place).
While completely full of lies, these particular words Butler wrote are actually comprehensible. STAY IN YOUR LANE, JUDITH!
Powerful New Age lobby wants to replace modern medicine with spells.
Christian conservatives argue that this is Satanic, and leads to infestation by demons.
Secular liberals argue that this is unscientific, and doesn’t work.
The inconsistency and equal opportunity approach to rhetorical strategies of left and right produced by the fear-and- hate-driven Anti-Wiccans causes confusion, but also compels. This is how fascism works.
Ah, I came to Butterflies & Wheels to call attention to this dishonest nonsense, but Ophelia had already come across it. I am afraid I just skimmed through it, but even when reading at speed the sheer shoddiness of what passes for argument in the piece is blatantly clear. It is an unpleasant hit-job, and it is appalling that the Guardian should have published it.
I dislike Judith Butler intensely. She’s known for this kind of thing.
Just another set of unargued, unjustified, untrue assertions, same as any other. Only more boring and long-winded.
@Your Name’s not Bruce?
If we’re entering into some sort of celebrity Judith Butler fantasy debate deathmatch sort of thing (and for the record, I absolutely think we should) then as much as I admire Ceri, I’m going to pick Jane Claire Jones every single time.
She wouldn’t just wipe the floor with Butler, there would have to be a whole new convention on human rights drawn up to prevent such cruelty ever taking place again.
Oh but what about Boodle? Glosswitch? Doc Stock? Julie Bindel? Helen Joyce? Joan Smith? We’re spoiled for choice.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, any one of those could obliterate Butler without breaking sweat. But JCJ would cause her to shiver apart into molecules with a single, sweary sentence.
I do have to say the highlight of my weekend at Filia was hearing JCJ speak ‘on her own turf’, ie not in response to interview questions–to hear how she structures and formulates what she wants to communicate without having to do it within someone else’s intellectual structure.