J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

AbusesToilets

Can't for the life of me understand why businesses let themselves be manipulated by these groups. Being loud and obnoxious on Twitter doesn't equal having any real world influence. If they just told them to sod off, they'd see how empty their threats are, and break the stranglehold they have on public discourse.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can't for the life of me understand why businesses let themselves be manipulated by these groups. Being loud and obnoxious on Twitter doesn't equal having any real world influence. If they just told them to sod off, they'd see how empty their threats are, and break the stranglehold they have on public discourse.

I think... I think they are just covering themselves because they don’t know how others will react. Nobody wants to be smeared by being called a bigot and I don’t know what to call it but there’s a chilling effect where everyone is afraid to speak up. I feel like a dam will burst at some point. There will be a tipping point where many, many people start speaking up because we will realise that we can’t all be criticised.

I mean, I was wondering why the cervical cancer literature couldn’t say ‘women, transgender men and non-binary people with a cervix’. What would be the problem with that? It encompasses everyone. Well, there’s one group it doesn’t encompass and that’s transgender women, because why would it? But the only reason I can think of to mention transgender men in the literature but not women is to spare the feelings of transgender women because... I don’t know... it reminds them that they don’t have a cervix? That’s not giving much credit to transgender women either that they can’t handle the fact that women have a different anatomy to them.

B.A._Baracus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can't for the life of me understand why businesses let themselves be manipulated by these groups. Being loud and obnoxious on Twitter doesn't equal having any real world influence. If they just told them to sod off, they'd see how empty their threats are, and break the stranglehold they have on public discourse.

I get what you are saying but that Christian bakery who refused to make a gay cake years ago comes to mind. All the hassle and media storm that came about from that. You can understand why a business would just go with the flow.

I understand it's not all of the LGBTQ community who do this, however it feels like there is ALOT who get pleasure from going on social media to accuse someone or something of homophobia, transphobia etc if they simply do not get their own way.

Which in turn has the reverse effect of what these people want. They will push people away. A person's open mind can become closed off if select other keep showcasing horrible attitudes and behaviours to those they disagree with.

My two cents anyways...

suicide_circus

I love the way she's being called an ugly bitch when she's clearly very attractive - just underscores the utter lunacy at play.

suicide_circus

Insisting people put their pronouns in their twitter bio....you can see the same intimidation tactics at play in videos of antifa cretins blocking traffic and not letting people past until they say "black lives matter" - classic Red Guard coercion - people need to resist this st1t with every fibre of their being.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

Insisting people put their pronouns in their twitter bio....you can see the same intimidation tactics at play in videos of antifa cretins blocking traffic and not letting people past until they say "black lives matter" - classic Red Guard coercion - people need to resist this st1t with every fibre of their being.

On that 'Red Guard' Chinese people's revolution type of a note, I read a really interesting article yesterday, which I won't bother linking as it is in a conservative, and I think Catholic, magazine, but it was a fascinating glimpse into Russian history around 1900-1917, written by Professor of the Arts and Humanities Gary Morson (Northwestern University, USA). It detailed the revolutionary activities of the radicals - the people's revolution - throwing bombs, lighting fires, being pillaging looting bastards generally in a remarkable similarity to present day rioters. And similar to now those radicals had a strong voice defending them in the Duma - the Kadets. The Kadets were middle class liberals, the radicals were so-called Intelligentsia, which does not mean intelligent, it means ideological. Their guiding tenet was that everything is political. And when the radicals finally got into power the Kadets were the first on the chopping block. Anyways long and short of it is history demonstrates again and again that those who facilitate the ideologues out of some romantic notion of revolutionary change will eventually fall foul of the thugs, one way or another..

conorhal

suicide_circus wrote: »

Insisting people put their pronouns in their twitter bio....you can see the same intimidation tactics at play in videos of antifa cretins blocking traffic and not letting people past until they say "black lives matter" - classic Red Guard coercion - people need to resist this st1t with every fibre of their being.

Absolutely, the intent behind this is to demoralize people in general and society at large.
One way autocratic regimes break people's will and demoralize their spirit is by forcing them to agree with regime 'truths' that they and everybody else know to be blatant lies.
Why?
Because it diminishes that part of you prepared to resist unjust and autocratic authority (which is why the state and various institutions also favour trans-mania). These are public 'struggle sessions'*.
When they force you to accept the lie, you become broken chattle, which is what they want, because once you agree to this deceit, they can probably force you to agree to pretty much anything they want......




* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
A struggle session was a form of public humiliation and torture that was used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at various times in the Mao era, particularly years immediately before and after the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and during the Cultural Revolution. The aim of a struggle session was to shape public opinion and humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies.

In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but they were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was well-known.

Parsnips

you can stick this "CIS" crack where the sun dont shine.
Im a man and dont owe you or anyone else identity clarification.
The same for anyone, regardles of preference.

FFS this is insanity.

jaxxx

I would defend LGBI to the death. But that's it as far as it goes where letters of the alphabet are concerned. TQ+ is absolute insanity. Male, female, intersex, being gay, being bisexual, is all part and parcel of the natural world; and they're not unique to the Homo sapien species. Everything beyond that however is pure lunacy, for the simple reason that TQ+ (+70 other different things apparently!) are all social constructs: gender is not a social construct. Whether you use sex or gender, it is completely irrelevant; it's purely semantics. That's not my opinion, that is biological fact. Human emotions or feelings do not get to supersede hundreds of millions of years of animalian evolution, or 200,000 years of human evolution.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I get what you are saying but that Christian bakery who refused to make a gay cake years ago comes to mind. All the hassle and media storm that came about from that. You can understand why a business would just go with the flow.

I understand it's not all of the LGBTQ community who do this, however it feels like there is ALOT who get pleasure from going on social media to accuse someone or something of homophobia, transphobia etc if they simply do not get their own way.

Which in turn has the reverse effect of what these people want. They will push people away. A person's open mind can become closed off if select other keep showcasing horrible attitudes and behaviours to those they disagree with.

My two cents anyways...

Just regarding that cake hassle, I think it was completely wrong against that bakery. They didn't refuse to bake the cake because it was a gay couple, it was simply because of the message they wanted on the cake. I'm as anti-religion as you can get, but I respect others wishes to believe in it. Even though it's very backwards in this day and age for religions to still be ignorant towards homosexuality, someone shouldn't be forced to do something that makes them uncomfortable. If I owned a bakery, I wouldn't refuse the custom of a TS person. But I absolutely would refuse to bake a cake that had the message "TS Women are women!". It's not cos I have anything against TS people, it's because I disagree with the notion that a biological man/woman can be regarded as the opposite simply because of cosmetic alterations. That doesn't make me a transphobe nor am I discriminating against them. But this lot, these fascist extremists, are so far up their own pipes that they lose all understanding of reality.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

I love the way she's being called an ugly bitch when she's clearly very attractive - just underscores the utter lunacy at play.

Well, that's the women-resenting I was talking about. Attacking her physical appearance, probably both because they know that many women will take insults about their appearance very personally and because they are envious of her appearance.

Sir Oxman

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1308417985753870336?s=20

Sir Oxman

Great news again from the UK
selfID is off the table in England & Wales.
The Scots are still rallying.

Heavens above, there is an awful lot of absolute sh1te on Twitter. Venomous, awful stuff.

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Great news again from the UK
selfID is off the table in England & Wales.
The Scots are still rallying.

Sorry, wtf is that about?

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, wtf is that about?

Changing their Gender Recognition Act to base it on 'selfID' was shelved/rejected/abandoned by their govt today.
It only applies to Eng & Wales & (I think) NI.
Scotland's SNP is digging it's own grave by digging in with an insane selfID act alongwith their even madder hate crime act (both not legislated yet)



That's the basic bit, I'll post links when I can get the time.

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Changing their Gender Recognition Act to base it on 'selfID' was shelved/rejected/abandoned by their govt today.
It only applies to Eng & Wales & (I think) NI.
Scotland's SNP is digging it's own grave by digging in with an insane selfID act alongwith their even madder hate crime act (both not legislated yet)



That's the basic bit, I'll post links when I can get the time.

Thanks indeed.

AllForIt

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Great news again from the UK
selfID is off the table in England & Wales.
The Scots are still rallying.

Yes I recall last December during campaigning for the UK general election the Lib Dems were pushing for SelfID. And what happened to them - they flopped in the GE and their party leader lost her seat. I don't even recall any actual transgender ppl calling for it just white middle class liberals pushing it thinking it would get them somewhere, which it did, but nowhere near where they hoped.

Sir Oxman

UK govt official statement:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/response-to-gender-recognition-act-2004-consultation


Also, same day (relevant to Irish kids who are referred to UK services)
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/09/nhs-announces-independent-review-into-gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/terms-of-reference-for-review-of-gender-identity-development-service-for-children-and-adolescents/

Errashareesh

Gervais08 wrote: »

You have women defending men threatening and abusing women because they want to be them.

It’s mental.

When you're a slave to whatever is the liberal (and fashionable) take, it blinds you to the elements that need further examination. Those women who condemn and defame and attack JKR feel no minority group can ever have negative elements, which is bizarre seeing as they're merely made up of human beings so of course they have bad eggs. Those women regularly identify as feminist too yet block out this misogyny because not doing so would look as though they don't bow before the altar of radical trans activism.

It's doublethink.

I do think it starts out as well meaning, but when you see fellow women experiencing that kind of abuse, and you're supposed to be a feminist... grow a f'ucking spine.

Errashareesh

Wonder what the little crew here of "tolerant" individuals who don't post much but thank thank thank would have to say regarding the abuse of Carano. Some of them are vurry feminist.

Gruffalux

Judith Butler has weighed in on JK Rowling and the like. Judith is perhaps the most influential of the gender theorists whose teachings have led to the significant attempt at the deconstruction of gender. She has been heavily influenced by Jacques Lacan. For anyone interested Butler goes so far as to say Biological Sex is not real - https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/butlergendersex.html

I really dislike her ideas, but people can make up their own minds. Her initial statements here claiming that people who oppose radical trans activism are on the margin is demonstrably incorrect as recent events have shown, including political developments in the UK. Her error is also being demonstrated by current high level investigations into the experimental medicalisation of often vulnerable minors that has been allowed to evolve under so called politically-correct approaches. Butler's gender theories have directly facilitated that abuse of minors. She would seek for it to continue, it appears, as her language has not changed. The very real abuse that has happened would not stop her saying people who oppose such experimentation are marginalised - she would be of the type who believes that repetition of her ideas, however obscure, makes them real. Mainly of course because as a deconstructionist nothing is intrinsically real for her, or has a true essence.

In this piece she seems to argue towards the end for the subsuming of the individual into the collective. That our deserved human rights should not rest on our individual natures as human beings but rather on our interdependent nature as part of a whole. Personally I think it is dangerous to start rubbing out individuality, each person as having their own agency, their own responsibility. But it would lend to what I think are her Borg-like ideas for what humanity is. Anyway, people can read what she has to say themselves.


https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times

Thirty years ago, the philosopher Judith Butler*, now 64, published a book that revolutionised popular attitudes on gender. Gender Trouble, the work she is perhaps best known for, introduced ideas of gender as performance. It asked how we define “the category of women” and, as a consequence, who it is that feminism purports to fight for. Today, it is a foundational text on any gender studies reading list, and its arguments have long crossed over from the academy to popular culture.

In the three decades since Gender Trouble was published, the world has changed beyond recognition. In 2014, TIME declared a “Transgender Tipping Point”. Butler herself has moved on from that earlier work, writing widely on culture and politics. But disagreements over biological essentialism remain, as evidenced by the tensions over trans rights within the feminist movement.

How does Butler, who is Maxine Elliot Professor of Comparative Literature at Berkeley, see this debate today? And does she see a way to break the impasse? Butler recently exchanged emails with the New Statesman about this issue. The exchange has been edited.

***

Alona Ferber: In Gender Trouble, you wrote that "contemporary feminist debates over the meanings of gender lead time and again to a certain sense of trouble, as if the indeterminacy of gender might eventually culminate in the failure of feminism”. How far do ideas you explored in that book 30 years ago help explain how the trans rights debate has moved into mainstream culture and politics?

Judith Butler: I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. If you are right to identify the one with the other, then a feminist position opposing transphobia is a marginal position. I think this may be wrong. My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen.

AF: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would "throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman", potentially putting women at risk of violence.

JB: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

AF: I want to challenge you on the term “terf”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which some people see as a slur.

JB: I am not aware that terf is used as a slur. I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women's spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

AF: The consensus among progressives seems to be that feminists who are on JK Rowling’s side of the argument are on the wrong side of history. Is this fair, or is there any merit in their arguments?

JB: Let us be clear that the debate here is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists. So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people. It is not. One reason to militate against this framing is because trans activism is linked to queer activism and to feminist legacies that remain very alive today. Feminism has always been committed to the proposition that the social meanings of what it is to be a man or a woman are not yet settled. We tell histories about what it meant to be a woman at a certain time and place, and we track the transformation of those categories over time.

We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings. It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women... Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people.

AF: In Gender Trouble you asked whether, by seeking to represent a particular idea of women, feminists participate in the same dynamics of oppression and heteronormativity that they are trying to shift. In the light of the bitter arguments playing out within feminism now, does the same still apply?

JB: As I remember the argument in Gender Trouble (written more than 30 years ago), the point was rather different. First, one does not have to be a woman to be a feminist, and we should not confuse the categories. Men who are feminists, non-binary and trans people who are feminists, are part of the movement if they hold to the basic propositions of freedom and equality that are part of any feminist political struggle. When laws and social policies represent women, they make tacit decisions about who counts as a woman, and very often make presuppositions about what a woman is. We have seen this in the domain of reproductive rights. So the question I was asking then is: do we need to have a settled idea of women, or of any gender, in order to advance feminist goals?

I put the question that way… to remind us that feminists are committed to thinking about the diverse and historically shifting meanings of gender, and to the ideals of gender freedom. By gender freedom, I do not mean we all get to choose our gender. Rather, we get to make a political claim to live freely and without fear of discrimination and violence against the genders that we are. Many people who were assigned “female” at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms.

Feminists know that women with ambition are called “monstrous” or that women who are not heterosexual are pathologised. We fight those misrepresentations because they are false and because they reflect more about the misogyny of those who make demeaning caricatures than they do about the complex social diversity of women. Women should not engage in the forms of phobic caricature by which they have been traditionally demeaned. And by “women” I mean all those who identify in that way.

AF: How much is toxicity on this issue a function of culture wars playing out online?

JB: I think we are living in anti-intellectual times, and that this is evident across the political spectrum. The quickness of social media allows for forms of vitriol that do not exactly support thoughtful debate. We need to cherish the longer forms.

AF: Threats of violence and abuse would seem to take these “anti-intellectual times” to an extreme. What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?

JB: I am against online abuse of all kinds. I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies that happens online and in person. I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania – or indeed right here in the US. So if we are going to object to harassment and threats, as we surely should, we should also make sure we have a large picture of where that is happening, who is most profoundly affected, and whether it is tolerated by those who should be opposing it. It won’t do to say that threats against some people are tolerable but against others are intolerable.

AF: You weren't a signatory to the open letter on “cancel culture” in Harper’s this summer, but did its arguments resonate with you?

JB: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate. I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life. If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person. We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently.

On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour. Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine. Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment. And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism. Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones. So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people. When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.

AF: This year, you published, The Force of Nonviolence. Does the idea of “radical equality”, which you discuss in the book, have any relevance for the feminist movement?

JB: My point in the recent book is to suggest that we rethink equality in terms of interdependency. We tend to say that one person should be treated the same as another, and we measure whether or not equality has been achieved by comparing individual cases. But what if the individual – and individualism – is part of the problem? It makes a difference to understand ourselves as living in a world in which we are fundamentally dependent on others, on institutions, on the Earth, and to see that this life depends on a sustaining organisation for various forms of life. If no one escapes that interdependency, then we are equal in a different sense. We are equally dependent, that is, equally social and ecological, and that means we cease to understand ourselves only as demarcated individuals. If trans-exclusionary radical feminists understood themselves as sharing a world with trans people, in a common struggle for equality, freedom from violence, and for social recognition, there would be no more trans-exclusionary radical feminists. But feminism would surely survive as a coalitional practice and vision of solidarity.

AF: You have spoken about the backlash against “gender ideology”, and wrote an essay for the New Statesman about it in 2019. Do you see any connection between this and contemporary debates about trans rights?

JB: It is painful to see that Trump’s position that gender should be defined by biological sex, and that the evangelical and right-wing Catholic effort to purge “gender” from education and public policy accords with the trans-exclusionary radical feminists' return to biological essentialism. It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society.

AF: What do you think would break this impasse in feminism over trans rights? What would lead to a more constructive debate?

JB: I suppose a debate, were it possible, would have to reconsider the ways in which the medical determination of sex functions in relation to the lived and historical reality of gender.

*Judith Butler goes by she or they

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

*Judith Butler goes by she or they

So, Judith Butler is non-binary... sometimes?

Anyway, many problems with that interview. This is the bit I’d like to comment upon:

Many people who were assigned “female” at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms.

Much of transgender and gender ideology is wedded to these gender stereotypes. I’m bemused at the notion that she thinks she is challenging those stereotypes by labelling people who fall out gender norms. A woman can’t possibly just be a masculine woman and still a woman, according to them. No, she must be non-binary. Same with a feminine man. Non-binary! It’s so regressive and for it to be presented as progressive is laughable.

Remove labels/categories, by introducing even more labels/categories... but it's fine because the "enlightened" get to decide who fits within those new labels/categories.

Dyr

Why the **** would any sane person read what Judth Butler has to say? Though I notice Twitter has been pushing her latest epistle as though it was dicated to her by the Lord.

hetuzozaho

BloodBath wrote: »

Twitter is a cesspit of morons. I don't know why anyone engages with it.

Yeah I think deciding you're starting to dislike a community due to twitter is a bad idea.

Best to get out in the real world. It's actually not as bad as twitter makes out IMO

Errashareesh

The view most people hold is a fringe view?

2+2=5 Winston.

Sir Oxman

Errashareesh wrote: »

The view most people hold is a fringe view?

2+2=5 Winston.

Yes, she has to push that idea - her life's work and compensation depends on it.
'Fantasy/fantasies' four times, says the great thinker in one pargraph on the opinion of the women who dared say 'eh, hold on a minute there'

Butler should take hetuzozaho's advice - Twitter, tumblr, Facebook, reddit etc is neither the barometer of global or, I should say Western consensus opinion and nor is her domain of academia.

Gruffalux

I think this particular paragraph deserves close reading -

If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

She repeatedly uses the word fantasy, which is very reminiscent of hysteria or silly little women with their fantastically stupid ideas. She even links it to unfounded ''powerful'' fears in a pseudo-psychoanalysis type of speech pattern - this is to reinforce the supposed hysterical nature of the silly fantasists. These silly fantasists are so deluded that they think any person (ANYONE) with a penis WOULD identify as a woman. Not could, may, might, or even has, as is the case in prison rapes or AGPs taking gloating selfies in rape refuges or ladies bathrooms. But WOULD. This is invention on her part, extrapolation to an extreme, for political purposes. This repeated idea of hers that the fantasies of the silly exclusionary marginalised ''feminists'' do not describe a social reality has been shown to be false. But Butler seems to have an acceptable level of collateral damage when it comes to safe guarding, so that the lived reality of others who identify into gender must take precedence over established sex based protections. It is ironic that she describes others as having fantasies when she has spent a whole career refusing to accept biology as being real. We have no essence. she has argued, what defines us is our ''performance''.


Just on a side note Butler has heavily influenced new writers like Sophie Lewis who recently wrote Full Surrogacy Now. Surrogacy is an area that really interests me. I think it is inherently abusive. Sophie Lewis argues that motherhood is really some kind of communal labour, she bases her ideas on Butler's ideas of detached and manufactured kinship. She believes in the abolition of the family as it is inherently abusive. In the last few days Benjamin Cohen of Pink News was giving out about the money he and his partner have to spend on IVF as opposed to heterosexual couples who (sometimes) get funded IVF where the female in the couple is carrying the child. This is a big step for him to argue - he is looking for state funding so he can have IVF done on a woman providing him with surrogacy services. Rich considering he does not recognise biological reality in the first place. Anyways. These are the weird and winding cul de sacs all this shyte lead on down. Note Sophie Lewis's partner is Vicky Osterweil who wrote the idiotic book In Defense Of Looting.

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Yes, she has to push that idea - her life's work and compensation depends on it.
'Fantasy/fantasies' four times, says the great thinker in one pargraph on the opinion of the women who dared say 'eh, hold on a minute there'

Butler should take hetuzozaho's advice - Twitter, tumblr, Facebook, reddit etc is neither the barometer of global or, I should say Western consensus opinion and nor is her domain of academia.

Hah yes was just musing on that repeated use of fantasy...so sneering.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just on a side note Butler has heavily influenced new writers like Sophie Lewis who recently wrote Full Surrogacy Now. Surrogacy is an area that really interests me. I think it is inherently abusive. Sophie Lewis argues that motherhood is really some kind of communal labour, she bases her ideas on Butler's ideas of detached and manufactured kinship. She believes in the abolition of the family as it is inherently abusive. In the last few days Benjamin Cohen of Pink News was giving out about the money he and his partner have to spend on IVF as opposed to heterosexual couples who (sometimes) get funded IVF where the female in the couple is carrying the child. This is a big step for him to argue - he is looking for state funding so he can have IVF done on a woman providing him with surrogacy services. Rich considering he does not recognise biological reality in the first place. Anyways. These are the weird and winding cul de sacs all this shyte lead on down. Note Sophie Lewis's partner is Vicky Osterweil who wrote the idiotic book In Defense Of Looting.

What I find funny about Cohen’s whinging is that he seems to think that people’s criticism of surrogacy is newly manufactured just to have a go at him. When actually, radical feminists have opposed surrogacy for decades and even many women who don’t consider themselves feminists have reservations about the practice. The utter self-absorption of the guy. Yes, Ben, nobody cared about the issues surrounding surrogacy until you talked about it two days ago. His ignorance and narcissism is staggering.