Doubling down on its fanatical adherence to gender identity ideology, The Guardian published an interview with Judith Butler this week.
An architect of Queer Theory, Butler published her best-known work, Gender Trouble, in 1990. Her main contention, in this book and those she has published since, is one of ‘performativity’, ie that gender is a social subterfuge and the state of being a man or woman alterable by behaviour and self-perception.
Twenty years ago, the philosopher, Martha C. Nussbaum, wrote a brilliant take-down of Butler’s work, describing her as the Professor of Parody. She points out the major flaws in Butler’s theories, particularly in reference to feminism, and critiques her impenetrable writing style.
Butler has, not surprisingly, become a pin-up girl of the gender identity cult. She can always be relied upon to throw proper feminists under the bus when gender zealots like those at the The Guardian need to wheel out a talking head who has at least a veneer of academic authority.
On this occasion, Butler was interviewed by Jules Gleeson, a trans identified male.
Gleeson is the co-editor of a book called Transgender Marxism. He has written in the past about the ‘noxious views’ of lesbians trying to defend their sex-based rights and has likened gender critical feminists to religious reactionaries. He’s also called for the abolition of the family unit because it is ‘transphobic’.
Of course, he flings the slur ‘Terf’ around with impunity and, for someone who calls himself as a ‘queer historian’, has a shockingly revisionist approach to describing the LGB liberation movement.
He was also one of the trans activists involved in the spiteful little scheme to try and discredit Helen Joyce’s book.
So his agenda couldn’t be more be more obvious.
From the outset, Gleeson’s interview with Butler peddles the usual anti-science rhetoric about sex being fluid and prone to change. Even more pernicious is Butler trying to flog the myth that feminism actually depends upon this fluidity and the admittance of males into the category of female.
“What it means to be a woman does not remain the same from decade to decade. The category of woman can and does change, and we need it to be that way. Politically, securing greater freedoms for women requires that we rethink the category of “women” to include those new possibilities. The historical meaning of gender can change as its norms are re-enacted, refused or recreated. So we should not be surprised or opposed when the category of women expands to include trans women.”
My reaction to this dreadful dick-pandering bilge is “Fuck that”. Dr Jane Clare Jones, however, provides a far more nuanced response.
But there were even more contentious pronouncements ahead in this article. So contentious, in fact, that less than 24 hours after it was published, The Guardian spirited them away.
Luckily, the internet is forever and the expunged section remains for all to see.
This was Gleeson’s question and Butler’s reply.
Butler vilified feminists and aligned them with fascists because they protested against a male exposing his penis to a minor in a female-only space. That we now know this male is a serial sex offender should not affect the reporting of her words.
But given that The Guardian and their ilk rely on Butler as a mouthpiece of gender woo, her reputation must be protected. The Guardian’s decline under editor Kath Viner looks unstoppable at this point.