The guardian trundled out Judith Butler, the L Ron Hubbard of the Gender Cult and a pensioner who thinks she’s non-binary, to try and get everyone in line after certain recent incidents proved embarrassing to the gender movement. But it hasn’t gone the way they hoped it would.
Judith Butler is bizarrely, and quite wrongly, held up as a guru by US post-modernists dazzled by multiple syllables.
She’s done irreparable harm to the reputations and academic rigour of many universities, and helped cultivate a navel-gazing, identify obsessed generation in her image.
One of the most harmful individuals in western political thought.
And the reality is, most of what she says is meaningless drivel, but because it “sounds clever” no one wants to be the one who says that it’s all nonsense.
Hear hear. And you can never counter this, because there's always an 'ahh but you're stuck in a traditional, patriarchal, right wing mindset and you are so oppressed it has robbed you of critical thought' response. Your very caution or disagreement proves them right. To become less repressed you must expand your horizons/categories and throw off the oppressor's labels for everything and adopt this way to think. How you think is wrong. Rights are merely constructs. And you don't know you know that because that's some kind of fallacy. You have no internal world, it's externally imposed, and exceedingly oppressive, so free yourself!
I abhor the making me jump through hoops to comprehend their shaky points. The comparison with Hilary Mantel's interview was stark - I suspect why they mangled Hilary's responses to disrupt the logic of what she was saying. Other academics steeped in this nodding-dog chin-stroking.
I find it really Public School. It's like Boris at Eton taking a perversely silly point in a debate and being as extreme as he can for the fun of it and the more outrageous he became so the more people laugh. Then being named the winner as he made them laugh. He does this now surrounded by old Etonians in Parliament, so what's changed. Judith is the Boris of Gender Ideology.
It’s ironic, because it’s actually her own internalized misogyny and homophobia- which she’s now externalizing into everyone else- that is to say, her own repression and her own patriarchal brainwashing- which has resulted in her incoherent belief system.
To me, she is the epitome of a self-hating woman and a self-hating lesbian. She hates that she could be seen as “woman,” that she could be referred to or seen as a “woman philosopher” rather than just a “philosopher.” She probably also hates that lesbian sexuality has been repurposed as titillation for men.
Does she reject this by embracing that she’s an adult human female and decrying the sexism that would other her for being a woman, and a woman who loves other women?
No. Instead she says she’s not a woman at all.
I can’t remember where I read it, but someone pointed out just how often theorists and philosophers use their perspectives and desires to shape their philosophy, e.g., Nietzche was probably depressed and also felt powerless in his life, Jean Paul Sartre was overcome with moral lassitude and aimlessness, and was a bit of a misanthrope, etc. There are so many examples.
Similarly, Michele Foucault was a pedophile who regularly abused boys, usually impoverished Tunisian boys. So of course he wrote about the “construct” of age-related consent, and of consent itself; of course he wrote that rape was natural and not particularly harmful, except that society says it is so. Of course he said that children can consent to sex, and so on.
For me, Judith Butler’s rape and pedophilia apologia seems to me more about not wanting to be hurt by it, rather than desiring it. She doesn’t want women and children to be hurt by male predatory sexuality, and doesn’t see a way to stop it- well, say the magic words “it’s just stigma!,” and presto change-o, women are children are not hurt by it, so there’s no reason to try to get rid of sexual abuse or even think of it as all that abusive. It’s language which creates reality, after all; simply say that rape and child sexual abuse aren’t hurtful, and they won’t be. Saying so wills it into reality. (She seems to almost believe in some metaphysical power of spell-casting…while she’s not entirely wrong about the power of language to create reality, it certainly is far from being the only factor; animals also do not enjoy sexual attacks, and in fact female animals have evolved elaborate physical features to avoid such attacks by marauding males).
She has no interest in material reality, however.
It’s interesting to me how this notion of “queering” categories by declaring one thing to be its opposite was most vociferously applied to the deconstruction of sex. Regressive as it is, and as much as it flies in the face of all the feminism before it, I can see how seductive the idea of “gender”- and being able to identity into and out of it- is.
If women’s oppression is based on our sex, well then, since we’ll never eliminate sexual dimorphism and reproductive difference, it’s better to deconstruct sex and say it doesn’t exist, so we can identity as non-binary and confuse men into treating us better- right? Right?
It’s a childish way of looking at things, and would be quite sad, if the world weren’t taking it so seriously. That makes it less sad than dangerous.
The name for this type of philosophy is 'opportunism', you fabricate a fluid standpoint, while keeping an eye on how the wind blows so your jacket is still on! It is not uncommon among philosophers, because we/they deal with constructions of thought and language, while trying to keep 'reality' at bay
I asked above if anyone knew of a summary of her ideas, in more easily-digestible form (that is, for people who are used to reading less confusing, more straightforward English writing). Do you know if such a thing exists?
Or is it as you say, mostly navel-gazing nonsense - and thus irreducible to anything easy to understand?
I was attempting to put together an explanatory introduction or reading list for this as Timby asked for one. Then on why Philosophy etc, got waylaid, and am delighted to see these responses. Hurrah! So much of the History of Academia seems to be meanwhile-back-in-the-real-world hard to explain or justify.
If you go back to the start of Dr Em’s posts, there’s a link to the previous parts, she does cover quite a bit. And Jane is a doctor of philosophy so always a good read 😊
Pretty much. If you don't have a background in Philosophy with a big 'P' then might be worth refreshing your grasp of the concepts and terms and how they argue their points - subjectivity, objectivity, morals and ethics, epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, all the ologies, experience, knowledge etc so you can see the obvious holes in Judith Butler's work and how she uses her terms like queer and identities. And power, it's all about the power. Ooh and language (hence how crippling I find expressing myself on this). The links here are great, and other critiques, I think in another post JL has lovingly listed some of these now ("The Butler did it.."). JCJ also takes her theories apart bit by bit, which helps to site them in the wider study of Philosophy. I am fairly outraged that people think Philosophy = Judith Butler and get put off it, and Feminist thought, or study as a result. Or Linguistics. Or Politics...or Academics...
My best bit of advice would be - if it's so poorly written and you are struggling - it's possibly shite so try to read someone else. Talk about it and throw ideas and questions around with others. The really good proponents have a clarity and beauty in how they express themselves (even and especially in translation, thank you translators). Don't let anyone patronise you into agreeing as they've confused you. Have fun :-)
My brother was a Philosophy professor for a long while, wiith a focus on logic and causality (he wrote a textbook on a new language for describing causal relationships). His stuff was difficult for me to understand, but I think it was at least based on some kind of rational science. I would LOVE to ask him what he thinks of postmodernism and its children, but he is no longer in contact with me or the rest of our family. Perhaps someday we will reconnect and I can talk to him about this.
Have you read "Gender Trouble"? It was her first big 'feminist' attempt, but not completely unreadable, probably because at that time (ie. 1980s!) everything looked so black and white, and 'Gender' was the new magic word, following Gay Liberation.....killing Feminism on the way!
Butler formed the global vanguard of the mob which killed feminism in academia in the 1980s when suddenly Gender Studies took the place of Feminism (I am sad to say: after Gay Liberation's successes) in academia, I was there in Sydney, Australia as an academic feminist lecturer. lost my job!
As an academic in biology, I'm just horrified by what seems to have gone in some of these departments. Why is there no requirement for all these "theories" to be based on facts, or even just simple observable reality? Pretending there's not two sexes would make rather a lot of my classes impossible to teach!
I swear, all Judith does is grab a bunch of words and (sometimes names) that 'seem' complex, throws them about in a bag and then spews them out randomly. How she has any recognition is utterly beyond me. The door to her babble needs to be firmly closed.
I like to think she is stuck in a permanent game of MetaScrabble where every letter tile is shaken around in that nice little handmade bag you mention, with a nice little drawstring top, aiming for her triple word score with some 'Z's.
My belief is she's trained to do this. An establishment tool, and everything about her and others in this emerging radical cult is the result of years of hidden training. Robin Diangelo is another one. Professional brainwashers.
Here is not the voice who knows anything about transgender issues.
Indeed, hers is the voice of someone who swallowed one too many books on transgender issues and regurgitated them back up with all the indexes missing.
Sadly she's been at this for decades - it was her that wrote the books and set the course - literally - for this discourse that has led to to proliferation of pontificating under the guise of intellectualising.
To be honest, they haven't had legitimacy for years. I cannot believe anyone still subscribes to those lying, misogynistic cretins. I wrote a series of emails to them years ago about their nest of petted and cossetted misogynists and their penchant for deleting my comments which were defending myself from verbal abuse from the sort of men who enjoy harming women. Crickets.
I saw the headline over breakfast and almost threw up. "We need to rethink the category of women" - no we fucking don't Judith. Women exist outside your solipsistic navel-gazing shite.
The only sense I can make of these is that the idea is to pretend as hard as possible that biological sex doesn’t exist and therefore that “gender” is completely arbitrary and unanchored, and then a miracle will occur and sex based discrimination will vanish, because nobody will know what “sex” is. Like any utopian project that would require complete buy in and for people to ignore not just the evidence of their senses but basic common sense it seems terrifyingly authoritarian to me. But mostly just hopeless since outside of literal children and the terminally woke and online, nobody buys this or cares.
'who needs enemies when your so-called feminists do the job better' was my answer to Gender Trouble (and the rest!) as a radical feminist academic lecturer in the 1980s
As a reasonably intelligent non-academic, I've found it nearly impossible for me to understand the writings of folks like Butler. Yet my more academically-oriented friends think she's the bees-knees.
Since you came from that world, do you know anywhere I can look to find an accurate summary of Butler's writings in more accessible, easy-to understand English?
Your "academically oriented" friends don't understand it either, but like all conformists follow the leader. I'm reading Marx which is about as dense as it gets (plus lots of statistics), and I wouldn't waste one second on Butler's utter nonsense.
Two of them that read one of her recent books (can't remember right now) said it took them several reads of it and a long time pondering and discussing it between them, to fully understand it. These are smart women, and not particularly conforming, really; but in the gender world, they DO seem to be on that side of things than on this (my) side of it... that is, they believe at least some of the woo, even if just because they feel they are being kinder/more-empathetic to do so, I guess. :-/
My experience is that many people say they understand what they have read, but if you read the same writing and then question them it becomes clear that they didn't understand what was written. How can anyone "understand" the complete and utter nonsense that Butler writes? It appears to me to be a word salad, words almost seemingly chosen at random and then stuck together with a little punctuation. That "sentence" that Murray read on the short audio was absurd. And why would anyone waste time reading, rereading, then pondering and discussing this obfuscatory drivel? I can't believe how much time some people have!
The Grauniad is not a news source, it's a source of 'graun', that stuff that flourishes in plugholes, like chewing gum stuck under desks or grot under your nails. I am watching its decline with half an eye ready for the explosion of gunk. The TRA are angry at 'censorship' hours after they did exactly the same to Dame Hilary Mantel who is clearly The Wrong Sort of Woman.
"The anti-gender ideology movement, a global movement, insists that sex is biological and real, or that sex is divinely ordained, and that gender is a destructive fiction, taking down both “man” and “civilization” and “God”. Anti-gender politics have been bolstered by the Vatican and the more conservative evangelical and apostolic churches on several continents, but also by neoliberals in France and elsewhere who need the normative family to absorb the decimation of social welfare."
yeah basically most of the world aren't buying it.
The scientific and biological fact of the two sexes of the species, male and female, has nothing to do with God or the Vatican, but everything you came from, just look at your navel!
In my humble opinion she is a fraud and empty like all the best NPD's but luckily for her academia has given her a platform which has given her ego free rein to spout utter bollocks.
Butler shows she is even more worthless as before, she does as if she did not claim that there was no sex, no biological difference, outside representation, ie. 'sex' and 'gender' are both social constructs, her 'theory' was postmodernism in the worst manner and it has not improved
Judith Butler is bizarrely, and quite wrongly, held up as a guru by US post-modernists dazzled by multiple syllables.
She’s done irreparable harm to the reputations and academic rigour of many universities, and helped cultivate a navel-gazing, identify obsessed generation in her image.
One of the most harmful individuals in western political thought.
And the reality is, most of what she says is meaningless drivel, but because it “sounds clever” no one wants to be the one who says that it’s all nonsense.
Well said, drivel on steroids.
Hear hear. And you can never counter this, because there's always an 'ahh but you're stuck in a traditional, patriarchal, right wing mindset and you are so oppressed it has robbed you of critical thought' response. Your very caution or disagreement proves them right. To become less repressed you must expand your horizons/categories and throw off the oppressor's labels for everything and adopt this way to think. How you think is wrong. Rights are merely constructs. And you don't know you know that because that's some kind of fallacy. You have no internal world, it's externally imposed, and exceedingly oppressive, so free yourself!
I abhor the making me jump through hoops to comprehend their shaky points. The comparison with Hilary Mantel's interview was stark - I suspect why they mangled Hilary's responses to disrupt the logic of what she was saying. Other academics steeped in this nodding-dog chin-stroking.
I find it really Public School. It's like Boris at Eton taking a perversely silly point in a debate and being as extreme as he can for the fun of it and the more outrageous he became so the more people laugh. Then being named the winner as he made them laugh. He does this now surrounded by old Etonians in Parliament, so what's changed. Judith is the Boris of Gender Ideology.
It’s ironic, because it’s actually her own internalized misogyny and homophobia- which she’s now externalizing into everyone else- that is to say, her own repression and her own patriarchal brainwashing- which has resulted in her incoherent belief system.
To me, she is the epitome of a self-hating woman and a self-hating lesbian. She hates that she could be seen as “woman,” that she could be referred to or seen as a “woman philosopher” rather than just a “philosopher.” She probably also hates that lesbian sexuality has been repurposed as titillation for men.
Does she reject this by embracing that she’s an adult human female and decrying the sexism that would other her for being a woman, and a woman who loves other women?
No. Instead she says she’s not a woman at all.
I can’t remember where I read it, but someone pointed out just how often theorists and philosophers use their perspectives and desires to shape their philosophy, e.g., Nietzche was probably depressed and also felt powerless in his life, Jean Paul Sartre was overcome with moral lassitude and aimlessness, and was a bit of a misanthrope, etc. There are so many examples.
Similarly, Michele Foucault was a pedophile who regularly abused boys, usually impoverished Tunisian boys. So of course he wrote about the “construct” of age-related consent, and of consent itself; of course he wrote that rape was natural and not particularly harmful, except that society says it is so. Of course he said that children can consent to sex, and so on.
For me, Judith Butler’s rape and pedophilia apologia seems to me more about not wanting to be hurt by it, rather than desiring it. She doesn’t want women and children to be hurt by male predatory sexuality, and doesn’t see a way to stop it- well, say the magic words “it’s just stigma!,” and presto change-o, women are children are not hurt by it, so there’s no reason to try to get rid of sexual abuse or even think of it as all that abusive. It’s language which creates reality, after all; simply say that rape and child sexual abuse aren’t hurtful, and they won’t be. Saying so wills it into reality. (She seems to almost believe in some metaphysical power of spell-casting…while she’s not entirely wrong about the power of language to create reality, it certainly is far from being the only factor; animals also do not enjoy sexual attacks, and in fact female animals have evolved elaborate physical features to avoid such attacks by marauding males).
She has no interest in material reality, however.
It’s interesting to me how this notion of “queering” categories by declaring one thing to be its opposite was most vociferously applied to the deconstruction of sex. Regressive as it is, and as much as it flies in the face of all the feminism before it, I can see how seductive the idea of “gender”- and being able to identity into and out of it- is.
If women’s oppression is based on our sex, well then, since we’ll never eliminate sexual dimorphism and reproductive difference, it’s better to deconstruct sex and say it doesn’t exist, so we can identity as non-binary and confuse men into treating us better- right? Right?
It’s a childish way of looking at things, and would be quite sad, if the world weren’t taking it so seriously. That makes it less sad than dangerous.
Good analysis. I think that too when she talk about her discomfort about explain her gender and her guilt to be so often in gay and lesbian bar...
There is no pride to ne woman or lesbian in her speech...
Internal misogyny and homophobia IS the most important part of her work.
The name for this type of philosophy is 'opportunism', you fabricate a fluid standpoint, while keeping an eye on how the wind blows so your jacket is still on! It is not uncommon among philosophers, because we/they deal with constructions of thought and language, while trying to keep 'reality' at bay
It really actually is drivel.
I asked above if anyone knew of a summary of her ideas, in more easily-digestible form (that is, for people who are used to reading less confusing, more straightforward English writing). Do you know if such a thing exists?
Or is it as you say, mostly navel-gazing nonsense - and thus irreducible to anything easy to understand?
Dr Em has written good stuff
http://uncommongroundmedia.com/the-trojan-unicorn-qt-and-paedophilia-part-iv-dr-em/
I was attempting to put together an explanatory introduction or reading list for this as Timby asked for one. Then on why Philosophy etc, got waylaid, and am delighted to see these responses. Hurrah! So much of the History of Academia seems to be meanwhile-back-in-the-real-world hard to explain or justify.
Does the above link cover what you were going to suggest? I appreciate the thought, in any case! :-)
If you go back to the start of Dr Em’s posts, there’s a link to the previous parts, she does cover quite a bit. And Jane is a doctor of philosophy so always a good read 😊
Pretty much. If you don't have a background in Philosophy with a big 'P' then might be worth refreshing your grasp of the concepts and terms and how they argue their points - subjectivity, objectivity, morals and ethics, epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, all the ologies, experience, knowledge etc so you can see the obvious holes in Judith Butler's work and how she uses her terms like queer and identities. And power, it's all about the power. Ooh and language (hence how crippling I find expressing myself on this). The links here are great, and other critiques, I think in another post JL has lovingly listed some of these now ("The Butler did it.."). JCJ also takes her theories apart bit by bit, which helps to site them in the wider study of Philosophy. I am fairly outraged that people think Philosophy = Judith Butler and get put off it, and Feminist thought, or study as a result. Or Linguistics. Or Politics...or Academics...
My best bit of advice would be - if it's so poorly written and you are struggling - it's possibly shite so try to read someone else. Talk about it and throw ideas and questions around with others. The really good proponents have a clarity and beauty in how they express themselves (even and especially in translation, thank you translators). Don't let anyone patronise you into agreeing as they've confused you. Have fun :-)
*sorry for typos I'm tired
My brother was a Philosophy professor for a long while, wiith a focus on logic and causality (he wrote a textbook on a new language for describing causal relationships). His stuff was difficult for me to understand, but I think it was at least based on some kind of rational science. I would LOVE to ask him what he thinks of postmodernism and its children, but he is no longer in contact with me or the rest of our family. Perhaps someday we will reconnect and I can talk to him about this.
Thanks for your advice and aid!
Yes, forgot about that! Uncommonground is worth following
Thanks, I'll take a look!
Have you read "Gender Trouble"? It was her first big 'feminist' attempt, but not completely unreadable, probably because at that time (ie. 1980s!) everything looked so black and white, and 'Gender' was the new magic word, following Gay Liberation.....killing Feminism on the way!
I haven't - I presumed that all of her writing was as impenetrable as what I've perused. I may give it a look. :-)
And this one
https://janeclarejones.com/2019/01/24/judith-butler-how-to-disappear-patriarchy-in-three-easy-steps/
And thanks some more!
Also Jane Clare Jones
https://www.google.de/amp/s/janeclarejones.com/2018/07/18/part-3-all-that-trouble-with-gender/amp/
Thanks!
Oh, and... https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1435368635980263427?s=20
Judith Butler: all the terfs are far right with far right funding
Guardian: cool let's print that
Guardian readers: citations needed, yo
Guardian: you have sources right
Judith Butler: sources are discursively constructed
Guardian: (backs away slowly)
Butler formed the global vanguard of the mob which killed feminism in academia in the 1980s when suddenly Gender Studies took the place of Feminism (I am sad to say: after Gay Liberation's successes) in academia, I was there in Sydney, Australia as an academic feminist lecturer. lost my job!
As an academic in biology, I'm just horrified by what seems to have gone in some of these departments. Why is there no requirement for all these "theories" to be based on facts, or even just simple observable reality? Pretending there's not two sexes would make rather a lot of my classes impossible to teach!
It's so scary. The very foundations of reality being torn away!
Disastrous effect.
Horrific... if only we had a time machine.
A time-machine wont help. People will always be easily led or silent and those who speak up are ostracised.
I swear, all Judith does is grab a bunch of words and (sometimes names) that 'seem' complex, throws them about in a bag and then spews them out randomly. How she has any recognition is utterly beyond me. The door to her babble needs to be firmly closed.
I like to think she is stuck in a permanent game of MetaScrabble where every letter tile is shaken around in that nice little handmade bag you mention, with a nice little drawstring top, aiming for her triple word score with some 'Z's.
That should be 'Q's shouldn't it. And the magic blank tiles that mean any letter you like bwwwaaaahhahaahaa.
Hahaha omg totally agree! On the nail, babes!
Brilliant!
My belief is she's trained to do this. An establishment tool, and everything about her and others in this emerging radical cult is the result of years of hidden training. Robin Diangelo is another one. Professional brainwashers.
Here is not the voice who knows anything about transgender issues.
Indeed, hers is the voice of someone who swallowed one too many books on transgender issues and regurgitated them back up with all the indexes missing.
Sadly she's been at this for decades - it was her that wrote the books and set the course - literally - for this discourse that has led to to proliferation of pontificating under the guise of intellectualising.
Her intellectualism is about as real as gender.
To be honest, they haven't had legitimacy for years. I cannot believe anyone still subscribes to those lying, misogynistic cretins. I wrote a series of emails to them years ago about their nest of petted and cossetted misogynists and their penchant for deleting my comments which were defending myself from verbal abuse from the sort of men who enjoy harming women. Crickets.
I saw the headline over breakfast and almost threw up. "We need to rethink the category of women" - no we fucking don't Judith. Women exist outside your solipsistic navel-gazing shite.
The only sense I can make of these is that the idea is to pretend as hard as possible that biological sex doesn’t exist and therefore that “gender” is completely arbitrary and unanchored, and then a miracle will occur and sex based discrimination will vanish, because nobody will know what “sex” is. Like any utopian project that would require complete buy in and for people to ignore not just the evidence of their senses but basic common sense it seems terrifyingly authoritarian to me. But mostly just hopeless since outside of literal children and the terminally woke and online, nobody buys this or cares.
'who needs enemies when your so-called feminists do the job better' was my answer to Gender Trouble (and the rest!) as a radical feminist academic lecturer in the 1980s
As a reasonably intelligent non-academic, I've found it nearly impossible for me to understand the writings of folks like Butler. Yet my more academically-oriented friends think she's the bees-knees.
Since you came from that world, do you know anywhere I can look to find an accurate summary of Butler's writings in more accessible, easy-to understand English?
Or do you think it's not worth the trouble?
Your second option seems the sensible one I suspect
Your "academically oriented" friends don't understand it either, but like all conformists follow the leader. I'm reading Marx which is about as dense as it gets (plus lots of statistics), and I wouldn't waste one second on Butler's utter nonsense.
Two of them that read one of her recent books (can't remember right now) said it took them several reads of it and a long time pondering and discussing it between them, to fully understand it. These are smart women, and not particularly conforming, really; but in the gender world, they DO seem to be on that side of things than on this (my) side of it... that is, they believe at least some of the woo, even if just because they feel they are being kinder/more-empathetic to do so, I guess. :-/
My experience is that many people say they understand what they have read, but if you read the same writing and then question them it becomes clear that they didn't understand what was written. How can anyone "understand" the complete and utter nonsense that Butler writes? It appears to me to be a word salad, words almost seemingly chosen at random and then stuck together with a little punctuation. That "sentence" that Murray read on the short audio was absurd. And why would anyone waste time reading, rereading, then pondering and discussing this obfuscatory drivel? I can't believe how much time some people have!
The Grauniad is not a news source, it's a source of 'graun', that stuff that flourishes in plugholes, like chewing gum stuck under desks or grot under your nails. I am watching its decline with half an eye ready for the explosion of gunk. The TRA are angry at 'censorship' hours after they did exactly the same to Dame Hilary Mantel who is clearly The Wrong Sort of Woman.
Thanks for the explanation of graun!
"The anti-gender ideology movement, a global movement, insists that sex is biological and real, or that sex is divinely ordained, and that gender is a destructive fiction, taking down both “man” and “civilization” and “God”. Anti-gender politics have been bolstered by the Vatican and the more conservative evangelical and apostolic churches on several continents, but also by neoliberals in France and elsewhere who need the normative family to absorb the decimation of social welfare."
yeah basically most of the world aren't buying it.
Precisely. Honest scientists and religious people seem to be on the same side on this one.
The scientific and biological fact of the two sexes of the species, male and female, has nothing to do with God or the Vatican, but everything you came from, just look at your navel!
In my humble opinion she is a fraud and empty like all the best NPD's but luckily for her academia has given her a platform which has given her ego free rein to spout utter bollocks.
If you identify as "non-binary" do you mind shutting the fuck up about women's rights please? Thank you so much.
Butler shows she is even more worthless as before, she does as if she did not claim that there was no sex, no biological difference, outside representation, ie. 'sex' and 'gender' are both social constructs, her 'theory' was postmodernism in the worst manner and it has not improved
Indeed, she is just trying to move the pions on the board, but has already lost the game