DiscussionHow many lives has Judith Butler ruined?

submitted by JulienMayfair from (self.LGBDropTheT)

This thought came to me last night when I was reading about her Guardian article issues.

I know that the ideas that constitute contemporary gender theory have a long history, and I know about John Money, but I was also involved in academia Before Butler. If anyone was talking about gender in the way Butler frames it, it was too obscure to me to notice. I remember when she burst on the scene with Gender Trouble. Suddenly it was on every literary theory reading list, and people were slogging through its painful prose, feeling like there must be brilliant insights in there. That was 1990. With other intellectual movements, there are often multiple figures involved, but in this particular case, Butler stands virtually alone as the creator of this monster, which then gradually spread through Queer Theory and Women's Studies, ultimately destroying the latter and often turning Women's Studies departments into Gender Studies. At the same time, in the 1990s, others like Riki Wilchins were starting to popularize simplified versions of her ideas, ideas that ultimately ended up on websites like Tumblr and were read by countless discontented teenagers.

I wonder how many people have been sent down the gender path because of Butler's seminal work in the field. How many people have been silenced or canceled for disagreeing with her ideas? How many LGB communities have been destroyed? And how many kids are now being taught this nonsense as early as kindergarten?

In her recent interview, Butler called a belief in biological sex "fascism." When some teenage lefty on twitter calls everything they don't like 'fascism,' that's just ignorance and intellectual laziness. Butler has no excuse. She should know that 'fascism' has very specific historical and sociopolitical meanings, but, yet, she paints with the same brush as an angry teenager trying to win arguments by demonizing their opposition with scare words. It just shows what a fraud she is. I think that Butler is one of the most successful intellectual frauds of the last forty years. She's played the game very effectively, enjoying a highly-paid tenured professor's position while sowing chaos in her wake.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]DimDroog 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Butler is one of the most successful intellectual frauds of the last forty years. She's played the game very effectively, enjoying a highly-paid tenured professor's position while sowing chaos in her wake.

She is the personification of ivory tower liberals that normal people cannot stand.

I wonder if she believes her nonsense, or if she is having a good laugh about it?

[–]reluctant_commenter 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Could not agree more. It enrages me to see the damage that this one individual has brought upon generations of LGB people. And honestly, on women as well, and on other minority demographics, and on the general public.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Could not agree more. It enrages me to see the damage that this one individual has brought upon generations of LGB people.

I going to bite here: focusing all ire on Butler and her followers is counterproductive and goes more from a need to pinpoint a individual boogeyman than anything. These are mostly obscure academics who nobody outside specifics academic fields read or give a shite about.

The ones who people here should be pointing fingers at are the medical and legal industries, also partly STEM and tech corporations.

Who were the ones going on TV in the 50s shilling proto-TRA talking points again?

Who are the ones gaining big money from surgical interventions on healthy people and case lawsuits?

Again, who are the main actors behind the erosion of women's rights? Is it Butler?

It's important ti think about these questions critically to not fall for culture war bs.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

These are mostly obscure academics who nobody outside specifics academic fields read or give a shite about.

They're not obscure in "LGBTQ+" circles, though. And even if the general public doesn't know their names, their actions have still vastly impacted the general public. It's the same reason why people these days will name and talk billionaires they've never heard of, who own giant corporations that influence our daily decisions. Just because we didn't know their names doesn't mean they aren't extremely relevant to talk about.

The ones who people here should be pointing fingers at are the medical and legal industries, also partly STEM and tech corporations.

Who were the ones going on TV in the 50s shilling proto-TRA talking points again?

Who are the ones gaining big money from surgical interventions on healthy people and case lawsuits?

All actors who should be kept in mind, I agree. But I still think it's entirely reasonable to angry at Butler as well. I will admit, even if she hadn't created this homophobic belief system, perhaps some other individual might have. But I am still going to hold her accountable for her actions. And the fact is, almost nobody (outside of this sub) seems to realize or acknowledge how homophobic and otherwise messed up "Queer Theory" is.

Perhaps there should be more content/posts about the money-making aspect of gender identity ideology as well, though. It's important to talk about.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They're not obscure in "LGBTQ+" circles, though.

And...?

How many wokesters you know have actualy read any of her work? You think they care about a rather obscure academic theory?

It's the same reason why people these days will name and talk billionaires they've never heard of, who own giant corporations that influence our daily decisions. Just because we didn't know their names doesn't mean they aren't extremely relevant to talk about.

The difference is that millionaires have actually the money and influence to disrupt the flow of politics.

Let's be real here: Gender Studies is a barely funded academic field. Hell, people joke about GS graduates working on dead-end jobs all the time, so you really think they have actual power to influence politics? That's quite a paradox.

All actors who should be kept in mind, I agree. But I still think it's entirely reasonable to angry at Butler as well.

The problem is that people here focus way too much on Butler and way too little on the medical and legal industries and their role in the mess we are today.

It's easy to dunk on a single person, but way harder to do the same to institutions who do not have a tangible face.

And the fact is, almost nobody (outside of this sub) seems to realize or acknowledge how homophobic and otherwise messed up "Queer Theory" is.

It's because almost anyone really cares about Queer Theory.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And...?

And, "LGBTQ+" circles include the entirety of social media that is dominated by "Queer Theory". You know, Tumblr? Reddit? I'm not sure how old you are, perhaps your perspective might differ because of age, but I am in gen Z and I see this stuff referenced on a very regular basis, not only online when I tried to find communities I could relate to regarding my sexual orientation, but among allllllll my friends and peers IRL. They parrot her talking points without even knowing it. Her "obscure" academic theories have infected my generation of LGB people and honestly I'm sick of it lol.

Hell, people joke about GS graduates working on dead-end jobs all the time, so you really think they have actual power to influence politics?

Yet Stonewall, up until this past year, and HRC still, has been raking in cash from the corporations that sign up for all their "gender identity" trainings. There is money in promoting gender identity ideology; whether it actually goes to gender studies major students per se, I am not aware. My guess is that the degrees of students who work at corporations that do these sorts of "training" probably come from a variety of social science degrees.

The problem is that people here focus way too much on Butler and way too little on the medical and legal industries and their role in the mess we are today.

It's easy to dunk on a single person, but way harder to do the same to institutions who do not have a tangible face.

I think that's a fair criticism. What sorts of posts would you like to see on this topic? I like to do longer researched posts with lots of statistics, but those take time. If you have a particular topic you have in mind, I can add it to my list.

I will say though, I also think there's nothing wrong with having a thread for venting, lol.

It's because almost anyone really cares about Queer Theory.

(*no one, I'm assuming you mean? Otherwise I agree, it does seem like a lot of people care about it.) Or because the faceless institutions, like you named, are doing a great job of censoring honest conversation about it...

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And, "LGBTQ+" circles include the entirety of social media that is dominated by "Queer Theory". You know, Tumblr? Reddit?

People on these platforms don't care about Butler, but about attention and clout chasing.

Most of them don't believe in gender shite because of any theory, but simply because it's trendy and it might afford them some likes/upvotes. That's it.

Her "obscure" academic theories have infected my generation of LGB people and honestly I'm sick of it lol.

Nope.

See my comment above.

Yet Stonewall, up until this past year, and HRC still, has been raking in cash from the corporations that sign up for all their "gender identity" trainings.

Stonewall UK has nothing to do with GS as an academic field or even the main players on said field. They're professional activists who are interested only in their own bottom lines.

My guess is that the degrees of students who work at corporations that do these sorts of "training" probably come from a variety of social science degrees.

Again, and...?

These are literally the bottom feeders of gender shite, not the ones making big money or enforcing legislative chance based on it.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People on these platforms don't care about Butler, but about attention and clout chasing.

They may not know or care about her, but they do care about her ideas. Because those ideas are how they obtain attention, clout chasing, pressure people into sex in the case of (for example) AGP transwomen, and so on.

See my comment above.

Which I refuted. Let me be more specific, if it might help: Judith Butler's academic theories have infected LGBTQ+ media among my age group. Gender identity beliefs are extremely popular on social media, and social media skews young. You could reasonably argue, "Many young LGB people aren't infected these beliefs, they're just being censored off social media so it only SEEMS like LGB youth believe this stuff." I will admit that's a possibility; I'm one of those people.

The ideology that Judith Butler helped formalize and spread, is the leader of, is the same one that Stonewall's rules go by and that the entirety of "LGBTQ+" social media is run by. You could argue that Judith Butler is not as influential a founder of this belief system as some other people, or that tons of people come up with stupid belief systems and it's really the fault of money-greedy institutions or angry men demanding sex that this belief system took off (as you did argue, and as I acknowledged is an important topic to talk about). However, it makes no logical sense to argue that Stonewall UK has nothing to do with these ideas that came from gender identity ideology leaders such as Judith Butler. They are directly related. I don't believe that she represents everyone in or all of the content taught in the field of gender studies, but I'm referring to her specifically, not gender studies.

I get the impression that we might be using different definitions, here. I have noticed I tend to agree with most of your other comments, though, so I am in inclined to doubt that our lack of agreement here is substantive.

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you (and with both of you, in a way). Judith Butler is not the public face of this movement. I'd be more than willing to bet actual dollars on most reddit/twitter/tumblr users not even being familiar with Butler's name let alone her published works. But her ideas have absolutely saturated the culture, particularly in younger demographics.

[–]our_team_is_winning 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Academics do a lot of damage in academic circles, especially if their BS writing gets made mandatory in university courses, but like you said, the real power players are worse.

Trudeau, Biden, other countries' leaders who spout this crap and every legislative body that gets this crap made into LAW -- there's the biggest source of the damage.

For LGB people, it's compounded by every LGB organization adding the T and throwing LGB under the bus. And the painful part there is fellow LGB have done this. Wokeism is brainrot, but that couldn't have been a very healthy brain to begin with if it embraced this BS so easily.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Short answer:

Far, FAR too many :(

[–]jim_steak 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't blame Butler personally, I find her - like many academics - dense and hard to read. I sort of doubt most gender people have actually read her. Honestly, I think the trans movement exists because pharmaceutical companies wanted to make money and perform experimental surgeries, and they funded LGBT organizations to manufacture the justification for that. If Butler didn't exist they would've just used some other line of reasoning.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get what you're saying, but I think one can look at the history and draw a line of influence from Butler to her followers, especially people like Wilchins and Feinberg, who were not only reading gender theory but were participating in things like the Camp Trans protest of MichFest and writing books about gender that were easier to understand.

As a comparable example, I was aware of Critical Race Theory as developed by Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw. Now, I doubt a lot of people have actually read Bell's or Crenshaw's work, but you see people nevertheless believing received versions of those ideas and acting on them.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I wonder how many people have been sent down the gender path because of Butler's seminal work in the field

Not too many.

Again, some people here tend to overestimate the influence academia has on the world.

Do you think your average AGP twitter handle knows who Judith Butler is? Are they phds on the theory of performativity, eh?

I would argue Twitter, Tumblr and Discord have wayyyy more of a role in TRA shit than Judith ever had.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are alot more graduates of gender studies classes that help push her ideas, doing the enforcing for the tra's. Though i agree that social media pushed them further.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

True. Butler quickly developed an intensely dedicated following of grad students to whom she was a kind of high priestess. They became her "faith militant."

And everyone forgets Riki Wilchins, who played a big part in the 1990s in disseminating versions of Butler's thinking that were easier to understand than Butler's own writing. Wilchins' main career was in tech, and Wilchins helped created a movement in internet tech that supportive of gender ideology, which is part of why companies like Google and Twitter are so pro-trans.

Butler, on the other hand, has mainly remained above it all, but she dog whistles to people like Antifa by calling belief in biological reality "fascism," reassuring them that when they attack people critical of gender, they are attacking fascists.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wilchins helped created a movement in internet tech that supportive of gender ideology, which is part of why companies like Google and Twitter are so pro-trans.

Nobody has really explored the link between AGP and profession, but there has been a lot of casual observation from reputable people about how well AGP and technology get on. Probably having to do with... whatever makes someone AGP also inclines them to be interested in computers, which are very much mechanistic things--an interest typical of males. Also, activists classes love professions having to do with "journalism" or other platforms of thought--because they can tell you what to think.

Just ask Chelsea Manning about her very female-typical behavior:

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1318306498724900865

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1371156400949301251

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1371850938751840262

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1378342724512976904

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've theorized about this in the sense that the use of technology is never a one-way street. It's a feedback loop. The use of technology changes the user. Think about people who live their lives in worlds where people are focused on interacting with others via a disembodied online persona, where it's easy to pretend to be someone else and get rewarded for pretending to be that person. That's one reason I think that transgenderism was so rare when we were in a world where we were largely limited to living in our physical bodies. I think tech has amplified or even created impulses for people to live through identities that they've made up instead of being limited to the "meat."

Where I think you're wrong is in calling computers "mechanistic things." Older physical machines were purpose built. They did one thing. Computers are universal machines. They're largely not mechanical. They do anything you program them to.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well the internet let people with these interests to anonymously congregate. So it did play that role. E.g.: search: "I'm a man but I wish I were a woman." Find yourself on some BBS...

This is an explanation I've also heard regarding sadomasochistic communities in the US--they tend to be nerdy. They love fantasy board games, and there's a fair bit of people who make their living with technology.

So, as it goes, they say, the nerds with an SM interest were the first to be able to congregate in meatspace and do SM, because they had the means with the internet to find like-minded persons before networked computing was available to others less technologically gifted or inclined. This supposedly set the cultural stage.

Could be true, but my preferred explanation is as above with regard to AGP. Whatever etiologically sets the groundwork is the same, and it results in an interest in SM and fantasy board games, generally speaking.

I agree with your point about the Internet and personas. In today's culture/climate, identity is everything. It's fetishized. People have been crafting all sorts of identities on the internet. Whether that's Facebook, or Instagram... the medium makes it nigh impossible to see the reality, so the falsehood does not crumble. They're chasing the fashion of the month.

I think people are bored and lacking meaning--another outcome of technology, in general.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are alot more graduates of gender studies classes that help push her ideas, doing the enforcing for the tra's.

Most of the people who shield AGPs don't have any kind of academic background. They're mainly internet slacktivists who enforce their will by ganging on people on huge numbers.

Hell, most people on academic settings don't even know 'AGP' exists or how TRAs communities articulate online. For them, it's just about defending an poor 'opressed' group they have little to no real-world (or online) experience with.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would argue Twitter, Tumblr and Discord have wayyyy more of a role in TRA shit than Judith ever had.

But I think that's the trickle-down effect of her ideas.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But I think that's the trickle-down effect of her ideas.

How so?

The ones chilling transgenderism to the large public weren't sociologists, but the legal and medical industries. Hell, even STEM is more into this than most people might think.

These two are rarely adressed, even thought they have a way larger share of blame in this than the humanities ever had.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How so?

It may be the case that it's hard to explain to anyone who wasn't there, but back in the 90s, I attended two lectures by Butler, and you had to arrive early just to get a seat because the whole place was packed with fans of hers hanging on her every word. She had major academic celebrity status, and it's clear now as it was then that she wanted to replace biological sex with gender.

In a way, it's about who has the authority to speak on a subject, and the postmodernists have always tried to expand their purview, including expanding that critique into the sciences. Now, for that, Butler is not singularly responsible. There were a lot of postmodern theorists questioning science as a discipline back then, with a lot of it actually coming from branches of feminism. There was a whole philosophy of science group that met at our university, and it was primarily populated by women and coordinated via Women's Studies. It was pushing the same idea found in most postmodern critiques -- that what science considers "knowledge" is actually produced by covert structures of power that seek to maintain the status quo.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

She had major academic celebrity status, and it's clear now as it was then that she wanted to replace biological sex with gender.

In Butler's theory gender and sex are different things, which makes sense considering her framing.

The thing is: does she and her groupies were the ones directly responsible in changing the DSM V and baking transgenderism into law? I don't think so: she and her fellow gender theorists arrived late to this party.

There were a lot of postmodern theorists questioning science as a discipline back then, with a lot of it actually coming from branches of feminism.

One thing you're not getting is that 'science' is also responsible for our current situation.

Many psychologists and surgeons were in the forefront to this mess, as transgender surgeries mean a very lucrative market, full of healthy people who will be hooked on medical treatment for life, all with very little accountability and risk on their part.

The only countries pushing back on this have public funded health systems, which translates to government accountability, as happened in the Keira Bell case.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think I would separate science from medicine here as they are not always the same thing. Medicine is supposed to be based in science, but since medicine has to straddle science and social policy, it's never been immune to social pressures. Take, for example, the disaster of the "fat makes you fat" approach to nutrition, which we now know was hardly based in science at all and ended up just making people fatter by replacing fat with sugar.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing gender surgeries because they followed the science and found that the outcomes were not improved. But then people demanded these surgeries, and there were always places where someone would provide a service for the money, like the transwoman who's going to Brazil to get a womb transplant, probably because no doctor in the U.S. or Europe would do it.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I would separate science from medicine here as they are not always the same thing.

But medicine is a part of science.

The difference between biology and medicine is that the former is an applied science and the latter isn't.

Medicine is supposed to be based in science, but since medicine has to straddle science and social policy, it's never been immune to social pressures.

Did you know that funding is a fundamental part of science, specially in the US?

If a certain company nudges your reaseach team to manufacture certain results by threatening to cut your funding, what would you do? That's the dillema several scientists are faced with everyday.

Take, for example, the disaster of the "fat makes you fat" approach to nutrition, which we now know was hardly based in science at all and ended up just making people fatter by replacing fat with sugar.

Which was based entirety on manufactured studies by labs and research teams with ties to certain corporations.

The vision that the only things between science and it's conclusions are scientists and the evidence is very naive.

[–]fuck_reddit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I consider Butler and Foucault among the most vile academics to ever live.

[–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Judith Butler: looking back on 'Gender Trouble' (March 2021)

[–]Rage-Xion 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does she also endorse craps like the cotton ceiling.