Want to get Smarter, Faster™? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster

If Butler can talk normally, why can't she write normally?! This is actually comprehensible.

Anybody else here because they couldn't get past the (first sentence) of one of Judith's writings so they were hoping KZfaq could help.... yeah, that'd be me... :(

Lol the way she says "I know it's controversial, but that's my claim" in the weathered way of someone who's been making the same claim for like 20 years

Thing with bullying is not that they keep you in your gendered place. They make you feel like you'll never fit in with that ideal. Pretty messed up

I love how half the comments criticize her because they don't have a clue on what's the difference between sex and gender.

Im still confused about the difference between gender being "performed" versus gender being "performative"

It seems that most of the comments already got confused at the first step of differentiating sex and gender. Which I guess is understandable because 3 min is too little to explain her theory fully. To make it more understandable I will try to make a resume of my understanding of her theory, sorry for my english. First of all one should give a look into two concepts of Saussure... one, that no matter what we do we are always thinking within a system. For example, we cant imagine a new colour without distancing ourselves from all the other colours first, that means that we are not assuming a position outside of the "system of colours", we are still within the system. So, every type of "protest/alternative thinking" only finds meaning because of the conscious contrast and meaning of the other parts of the system. two, the triangle of reference....which means that when we see an object we perceive it as a whole but one needs to make oneself clear that there are different processes going on here: (1) the physical existence of the object.(2) the name we give to it. (3) the meanings and assumptions that we related to it. so, for example, "chair" ...chairs exist outside of language, the physical existence of what we call them has its own reason of existence in which the chair doesnt care what humans think of it, it just exists (1) . Then there is the name, in this example "chair" , language is a system of symbols, so we need expressions to refer to things (2). And then there are all those assumptions we relate to "chair" , that can be our knowledge about its potential materials that its made of, or also the knowledge that we use it to sit, that it can be usually found in dining rooms and so on, many many things. So, Judith Butler makes use of the thought line in which we need to be aware of (1) , the human physical body, (2) the name we give to divide its genitalia = "sex" and (3) gender as all the ideology and assumptions we relate to it. One should also take into consideration the concepts of Pierre Bordieu of Habitus and Praxis, in which Habitus is like the knowledge we got "programmed" with since we were little, and Praxis daily actions we do to replicate such "Program"...that can mean a lot of things, and its divided into many different categories and environments, for example food taste, based on what type of food habits your family had you are likely to replicate those in your further life and with your children, it is not a must obviously but life is full of those details. It also includes table manners, religion, or basic things like how to use a phone, how to react when we face stress, the way we express love or perceive love and so on. All that can be highly personal and individual but also goes further, it is a part on how society divides into poor and rich, or intelectual or not, or also how we create our perception of "foreigners" "nationalism" and also things like racism or sexism. We are born into a structure and based on how we are molded by that structure we then later replicate it with Praxis. Because a society is an alive thing that has the ability to adapt. We tend to think that society is something big and powerful and often ignore that its made of individuals like you and me. Also our identity tends to be formed based on differences...so, the white racist does discriminate against black people for example, not because of those persons inferiority but because of his attempt to try to establish him/herself as superior, so, by telling ourselves that "I am not x" one establishes that "I belong to this other category = I am this" (Stuart Hall) And then there is also Michel Focault with his Discourse. For him power is not a matter of hierarchy...instead its that what those complex social systems produce constantly in interaction to each other. So, power is omnipresent and not understandable directed by an individual. It also means that we are all below it. For example one might say that a president is above power because he owns it, but he was too below the structure of power that forced him to adapt to the "rules" of elections, or that he is below the social rules for a president of being for example extrovert (usually), or that he is expected to be smart and have good table manners, to be an excellent public speaker and so on...That whole combination of rules and concepts has many divisions and segments in which one reaction causes another one and so on. They are like chains of Discourse in which they give meaning to each other. And those Discourses do not follow some sort of strict Superior logic, they vary based on culture and also based on time. Different factors create different reactions and a society adapts to those changes of costums. One just needs to be aware how deep that goes, even things like for example punctuality, some cultures pay more attention to it than others. But that is also based on a combination of many small factors and one of them is a different individual/ cultural understanding of time that varies. That also leads to body perception...there were times in which being overweight was considered to be a sign of Beauty, tattoos and their social acceptance also vary. Based on how the outside demands are put on us by society we have a different perception of everything. And institutions for example create the effect of believing that the way we think is objective, that there is some sort of thought line that exists outside of subjective perception. So, now we come to Judith Butler...she is aware of all those and a lot more. She thinks based that, that when we think about gender (which is NOT the same as sex) we talk as if the body was like a chair in which whether it rains or snows the object does not get affected...But that is not true. Because there is not such thing as a human form before the formation of body, like, we cant freeze our brains. Because one essential side of human beings is their capacity to learn, to create an Habitus and we are what we learned to think. Based on that gender is a type of Habitus and we perform it daily and through that we create our identity through differentiating ourselves from each other by trying to create stereotypes or social rules that fit within that whole Discourse complex in which we live in. Now, gender is Performance and a social construct...again, we are not talking about sex here, and as we live within a system in which we cant fully escape it one might say that, sex is gender because as we are all anyway formed and created around it since we are born, it might be artificial but its still valid because its part of what we are or turned our minds into. And yes, that is true to some extent but our identity is based on many things more than that...the way of being "male/female" in one culture differs to the way of being "male/female" in another culture, your age also plays a factor, your grandmother has a different concept of "woman/man" than you do. Whether you are born as rich or poor, your skin colour also marks somehow how you are perceived by society and therefore how you perceive yourself, it marks your life and your identity. A person from the opposite sex than you who was born in the same social environment as you, who looks similar to you, same religion, Ideology and so on is more similar to you, your way of talking and everything than someone from your same sex who was born in another position of a social structure. So, we are born in a body and then turned into what we are through many many factors and sex is only one of them, a minimal fragment in a combination of thousands of details that we are constituted of. But for some reason we keep talking and thinking as if that one difference defines everything we are. We have incorporated in our mind that there are two type of subjects, male and female, and that everything else are atributes, like race, social class, hobbies, nationality and so on. Butler tries to bring up the concept about that we should perceive sex as an atribute as well, That there is only one human subject with many different atributes and not some sort of core that depends on your sex. Based on that we also wouldnt try to discriminate people for not fitting into their "gender" standard for example. More liberty to try to understand ourselves as complex creatures and not a mix of boxes. I am just a cultural anthropology student and we didnt study this subject thaaat well either so I am sorry if I mixed up some of the details around the terms or intentions of the respective philosophers.

I was a little surprised by the video. I'd heard Judith Butler's name in relation to current gender thinking. But here she actually moves in a different direction and says gender is socially created and reinforced rather than being something internal that one inherently understands.

If anyone must know my "classifications", I am a woman who detransitioned after spending a while identifying as male, and I consider myself a feminist. My theory is that gender is complex. Gender is partially biological, partially an identity, and partially a performance. There are differences between men and women. How much is nature and how much is nurture is something very hard to prove completely, because culture surrounds us and we take part in it every day.

I miss the days when people were just straight or queer and nobody really gave a shit.

She comes across like she is smart, but doesn’t get the simplest things it’s crazy

This woman has never done a hard day of work in her life!

as a lifelong masculine woman that regularly dances between dressing feminine and masculine (like most women), i seriously do not believe this. even in my most masculine energy, i have always felt like a woman. it wasn’t learned, it was innate. and if it was learned, that’s like saying cats only know how to be cats because they take example from other cats. have them be raised by another animal and they’d behave like that animal. okay, true….they’re still a cat though, with mostly catlike characteristics! does this make sense?

Is this the well-known HamaSS lady?

For a while I felt like I was a man trapped inside a woman's body ....and then I was born

To all of the people out there making ugly, cruel comments about Judith Butler, Calling her a man because she doesn't dress traditionally feminine just means she scares you. You're scared of being intellectually challenged by strong, intelligent women because you've been socialized to think they don't exist. But we exist and we're going to change the world. Find a better way to spend your time then commenting about how Butler is "ugly" or a "propagandist" because you're clearly afraid of what you don't understand.

So, are insect and animal genders simply learned social roles as well? Female spiders who don't want to lay eggs face harassment and violence? Do we also condition our pets in to gender roles? If genetics do not inform behavior, then what are primal instincts?

Utter pseudoscience.

This is pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual babbling that's completely detached from reality.

Isn't she just doing the same thing as the bully though? Just in a progressive sounding way. The bully says: "You're a girl, so act in a girly way" Butler says: "You're acting in a girly way, so you must be a girl" Shouldn't we stop putting people into boxes based on their behaviour or their gender expression? You can be a woman, and act as masculine or as feminine as you want. And same for men and non-binary people. In my view, your gender is an inner sense. I know that makes it hard to define and conceptualise, but not everything needs a concrete definition. The colour red, for instance. You could say something about light waves, perhaps. But you couldn't make a blind person truly understand what it means for something to be red. I think the same applies to gender. You can't explain what it is to be a woman, but if you are a woman then you 'just know' that you are one.

One thing I've acquired over time from listening to most intellectual speakers or philosophers is that it is crucial that you don't sprint to your conclusion, as you may be surprised at what you learn, even if you think you have all the facts. I neither agree or disagree, but interesting to hear.

Can behaviour also create a person's ethnicity? Their date of birth? Their species? Their nationality? Why not?

Seems to be contradictory. On the one hand gender is an inner sense of who you are and simultaneously it's socially constructed . People seem to have forgotten basic biology.

Many problems in the world started with this "woman" and her ridiculous assertions.

This poor woman's legitimate questions have been so distorted by the very people who support it (intersecrionalists and their kin). The whole point of questioning gender expression was simply to avoid, as she stated, the "policing" of variance in expression, like manliness/femininity in one culture is different from another, and the social repercussions in straying from those gendered expressions should not be punished or socially persecuted and ostracized. A noble critique in my view. The IRONY is now is its modern, liberal educated supporters are now the police of anyone who resides on the ends of the spectrum: if you are too feminine, you are oppressed by the patriarchy, conversely, if you are too gendered in masculinity and Heaven-forbid, heterosexual, you ARE the patriarchy (and deserve the historical comeuppance due!!) And now supporters of the theory have gona as far as publicly shaming and bullying anyone outside of the minority expressions, poetically eating themselves from within. Shame that the pushback end result might be the discarding of gender performativity theory altogether. It was supposed to offer the student a mental exercise in creating awareness in variance of expression, not make them the judge and jury of it! It was a noble step in accepting variety in expression (in this case the expression of one's gender based on their sex) and the freedom one has of it, but it may have overstepped now...

The idea that gender is a socio-linguistic construct comes from humanities departments. The assertion that nornative gender behaviors are deeply rooted in biological sex comes from science departments. As a humanities major, I'll go with the science departments.

Female gender = XX chromosome. Male gender = XY. If a woman wants to act like a man, that's her life. If a man wants to be feminine. That's also his issue. I just don't get why it's such a huge issue talked about like it's rocket science

To say a women is sex biased stereotypes and sex roles instead of an adult human female is very misogynistic. Especially when you claim a man can be a woman if you follows the stereotypes and roles associated with women.

Maybe we should called it No Think

judith butlers gender is performative.

straight male here. i got bored of performing maleness. it's boringly restrictive. i take what i like now. it's better.

Alright, so I've been reading this comment section for a while now and I keep hitting on the word 'propaganda'. But propaganda for what exactley? Please enlighten me, I'm puzzled.

We are males and females behaving.. "Nonbinary" is nonsensical

gosh what a deeply depressing comment section

Judith Butler in line with Big Think values: “There are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.” Judith Butler

I studied sociology for 5 years but never took her work seriously.

I actually clicked this video because I saw the picture and thought it was Richard Dawkins. lol

You're confusing "Gender" for "Personality".... everyone should read Martha Nussbaum's critique of Judith Butler. Well worth the read!

Why would you want to split sex and gender? I sometimes dont feel like a man. Still I am biologically male. Our spirit is always gender/sexless. But its just awesome getting to know your biology. Its part of exploring the material world by firstly accepting our biological vessel. Accepting societal norms that are hopefully adopted to the natural order. We cant change the material world. We can only change our societies but also they are dependent on nature.

This reminds me of the interview where an african anchor asks a gay activist why she's gay and she just answers "who says I'm gay" and the anchor is just confused.

PEOPLE what Judith is saying is that "gender" is a social construct. She is using a word you have already assigned a different meaning to, let that go. SEX is male female, essentially your biological makeup, if you're born with a penis or a vagina. What she's saying is that from society and ourselves and this "phenomenon" around us, we believe that BECAUSE of our SEX we have to adopt certain traits. For example, you may have a penis but not CONFORM to all stereotypes such as enjoying football.. you may prefer a fashion show? Judith uses a brilliant comment "I have some friends who say "I would die if I had to wear a dress" some of those are men, some of them are women". Just because you're born with a vagina doesn't mean you have to do anything society tells you to, you don't have to wear dresses for example. Essentially Judith is freeing us of all constraints, basically shes saying do what you want! If you're against her then your for society controlling your identity.

She made this topic actually very understandable and simple and I love it.

Judith Butler is the most blockheaded individual

Identity isn't about "gender" ! That's the fundamental lie in all this. There also seems to be some confusion when it comes to assessing the play between environment and "choice", something she seems rather certain about. I'd like to hear more about the kin relations around these issues which one never hears about as if such people exist in a vacuum & their relational context has nothing to do with it, their family politics has nothing to do with it, yet some go as far as mutilating themselves - anything so as not to face up to their problems. Very irresponsible to see the medical profession colluding in this. There's also a problem with the idea of a "performative" gender, in the end there are women who have deep voices and sound like men and even behave in some ways like men but don't go as far as self identifying as such. Why would they need to? To go to the extremes of changing your physical body means something more troubling is happening. I've read JB claims that trans-critical feminists don't represent the feminist movement - and she does? The feminist movement isn't an academic movement it's a social movement, always has been.

I’ve also thought that gender was a kind of re-enactment, where we pick up images and ideas of gender and we use those to inform our own gender manifestations. This means we take what we’ve witnessed and apply it to ourselves to provide or potentiate our gender.

'Gender' now has become to have the same meaning as 'fashion', and fashion means something we can put on and take off as we wish, but wishing has never really made anything 'real', just as ideology has never made anything real , when viewed over time. Ideology contains spectacle, and spectacles never nourish and endure in life enhancing ways. All public shows of gender statements show a desire for increased power and desire for public acclamation. Public acclamation is addictive and requires an ever present audience, and audiences need to be fed by a constant stream of new fashion in order to create a new gender to live in. And on it goes...

"Your behavior validates my regressive gender stereotypes" there you go, fixed.

I'm so annoyed I must read and write about this trash in college. College is a scam.

I am not denying gender is preformed. It's an other way of stating men and women behave differently, on average. But why? Judith states this is a cultural phenomenon, and to an(y) extent that is obviously true. One merely has to look at recent history to see differences in behaviour amongst men and amongst women. But does culture explain ALL gender behavior? I think Judith's ideas are insightful, but the postmodern feminist idea that gender behavior is completely a social construct is bollocks.

This is what she said in 272 pages of book.

Judith needs to distinguish gender and gender stereotypes and roles.

It's amazing how her worldview imposes the rigid paradigms that she's against. I didn't choose to menstruate at 10, I didn't perform puberty, I didn't identify as a sexual being I grew into one. At the time there was no costume that would make me less of a woman, I was just a "certain type" of woman. There's a basic vulnerability that comes with that, there's the reality that I have to disrobe half of my body just to urinate, that I'm smaller than most of my surroundings. Legitimate things that I had to navigate regardless of how I felt personally. Sex exists, gender has always been the sex-based roles imposed by cultures. To call those imposed behaviors the truth is reductive. An outfit or a mannerism has nothing to do with anyone's identity. She literally classifies the toxic categories that we've tried to stray away from as the whole of our being. We've set the clock back remarkably far and are actually more obsessed with masculinity and femininity and binary behavior than we have been in decades.

Not once she mentions biology as an important factor. And no, I don't believe in biological determinism but developmental psychologists have known for decades that boys and girls differ from an early age, before even any socialization happens. To claim that all "performances" are constructed randomly without a biological basis would make us wonder how male and female behavioral universals could have arisen at all. The same patterns can be noticed over and over and in societies that had no contact with each other and that's way before this globalized world in which we live.

this all goes back to the reality of being an individual. as an individual, you are out of the group, you are yourself. either people accept you or they don't, but they cannot force their opinion or "norm" on you. if they do that, then they are going against your freedom, and if they are allowed to do that, then that diminishes the concept or stand of freedom itself. people are individuals, not groups. the behavior of gender is defined as a personal issue, not a "must-follow" norm.

2:31 She told it. It's just her view.

What about chromosomes and hormones?

Estoy leyendo Cuerpos que importan, es la primera vez que leo a Judith Butler y estoy sorprendido me la esperaba mas académica con mucho lenguaje especializado pero es muy entendible

I don't really understand butler's point of performativity. for instance, as a kid I liked playing with cars and dolls. I built forts and played school teacher...so very mixed. I did like doing 'girly' stuff a little more. I am not interested in numbers, physics, electronics etc. and I think that is totally me feeling that. no one is forcing me into the role of a woman who loves talking more than staring into the tv scratching my belly so to speak. nor am I painting my finger nails all day or think about hairstyles and make up. I just don't feel like I am doing a gender someone forced onto me.

There are 2 types of ignoramus. 1. He knows that he doesn't know, 2. He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.

She managed not to say a darn thing. You've all been intellectually hoodwinked by a sophist. At least they don't teach this crap in college.

I'll repeat this again for the tenth time. Although we tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior, it does not mean (simply for the fact that we are individuals) that everyone follows those patterns and behaviors. It means some (not all) break out of that trend. It's not wrong to follow those patterns, I do it myself, but it's not weird or wrong or out of evolution to not follow those patterns. I think that fact speaks for itself. That is my entire premise.

plz don't comment unless you have an understanding of Foucauldian discourse. Thanks.

The mental gymnastics and conjecture are a sight to be hold.

lol if the naysayers are getting riled up over the three minute summary of her theory, i would love to see what they had to say after reading gender trouble.

some of yall dont know the difference between sex and gender and it shows

Some extremists in the radical intersectional feminism have taken Butler's ideas too far, what she is advocating in fact is empathy towards people who act in a non-normative way.

From the start, children up to the age of around 2, have no idea of gender. Even past 2, some children will not understand what 'girls clothes' or 'boys clothes' are. Gender is definitely performative imo.

I understand that some people may feel not the same inside as their "presentation", but what is valid for this person is not automatically true for everybody. I never wondered what I was, I always knew I was a girl, and I always wanted to have long hair and wear rings. Sure, it's more convenient to feel exactly how we look. But imposing this strange vision to the whole world, that chocks me. Being different doesn't mean being universal, as being "regular" doesn't mean it's valid for everybody.

"Are you a lesbian?" "Yes I am." Well color me surprised.

Absolute drivel.

This comment section is like a p-zombie sink strainer.

Three minutes of unsupported (and false) claims.

Michael Douglas has some interesting philosphical views

I'm beginning to understand my ancestors attitude towards what they called witches. I think they might have had something there.

1 will someone explain genetics to this lady 2 y is a literature prof talking about gender?

Just by people's reactions to such theories you can see how important they are, and how deep they touch people's values. I once read that gender studies are one of the most revolutionary philosophies of our current times and I couldn't agree more. It hits a lot of people right in the stomach (in a good way).

and my professors persistently push her and other thinkers alike onto us

The Emperor’s New Clothes

What happened to "Born this way?"

Sex is binary. Gender is a personality spectrum. That is all.

E.G. - Gloria Anzaldua, Naila Kabeer, Ann Fausto-Sterling, Donna Haraway, bell hooks, Alice Walker, etc. etc. I'm not just throwing out a reading list ... I think it is very important to understand the variations of feminism and what they offer, especially when one has such a quick, negative reaction to complex movements that have done an incredible amount of work for women's rights, women's agency, and the way we think about ourselves and others in terms of gender and power.

Everyone imagines they are helping. So few actually are.

She cant even Unserstand the simplest Things. Gender = Behaviours and social Role typical for one Sex. This social Role ist partly biologically and partly culturally constructed. If you behave atypical for your Sex, you don't behave as any gender. That doesnt mean you can make up your own. You either fit a gender Role or you don't. The mistake is to disconnect gender from Sex and biology. If you have a set of behaviour thats not linked to a Sex, its not a gender. So there are 2 Genders in that Sense. So the next Question would be: Can you choose your gender? Just as every other social identity, gender is negotiated with society. You can not choose ist yourself. The more you behave Like the opposite Sex, the more likely others are to recognise, that your behaviour would fit the opposite sex and treat you accordingly. But they will not act as If your dick fell off. Pronouns in Humans are linked to Sex, not to gender. Gender is nothing you'd need to Focus on. There is nothing wrong with behaving typical or atypical for your Sex. There is no value in breaking or sticking to gender roles. Just do what you want, but don't View everything from the genderperspective. Its useless and confusing, nothing more.

I presume that the reader of my lines here was once in an uterus and that there had been some sort of fertilization before. Whether naturally or done in a petridish doesn't make a fundamental difference. It just means that for all of human history the biological sex was THE reality (and is the reality of your parents). What we humans will do in future with all of our new biotechnological possibilities and our cultural and social freedoms is another question. I think there might actually come a time when we are not bound anymore to our natural heritage. But even if it was to come or is already happening we cannot ignore facts.

I love how Judith Butler herself is finding the words to describe her own notions while she speaks them. it's such an elusive concept you cannot claim anything about it that is unambigous

Are you saying that someone who is biologically female but doesn't act 'feminine' isn't actually a woman? What is she then? Isn't this extremely counter-productive for a feminist?

I was born female and I tried really hard to like things that are stereotypically male but I never made it. I ended up with 95% of all my interests stereotypically female!

"There are institutional powers, like psychiatric normalization, and there are informal kinds of practices, like bullying, which try to keep us in our gendered place. There's a real question for me about how such gender norms get established and policed, and what the best way is to disrupt them and overcome the police function." Is this the "Gay Agenda" I've been hearing so much about?

I think you miss the significance of "performative" here; the term's use in poststructuralist theory derives from J.L. Austin's idea of performative language: a judge saying "I hereby sentence you..." both declares the sentencing and *is* the act of sentencing. She's arguing (through an expanded, poststructuralist form of the concept) that gender exists in a way somewhat analogous to performative language. Quite different from "performance" per se, as she says in the video.

Grandma, did you forget to take your medicine again?! Sorry guys, she's demented and thinks it's still 1968.

Nothing more dull than ppl who are obsessed with their race, sex or sexuality.

Pov: You know that nerds will be convinced of anything if your book is obscure enough

It's interesting to note how phallocentric the phrases she used are "sissyboy" or "tomboy". She's spot-on, but it's interesting how even with "insulting" terms there's compulsory maleness. Unless some just says "don't be a girl" and that's impled anything bad.

I never understood Butler to the core, I mean: Aren't there biological differences between man and female? Like genitals, hormones etc? Can someone help me? Would be greatly appreciated.

Glad the academics are working on the tough problems, now that world peace and climate change is a thing of the past.

Her problem seems to be that she thinks gender=gender roles. My gender comes from me finding my body repulsive. From experiencing gender dypshoria. It has nothing to do with me being feminine. I am feminine, but I could be feminine and male. She seems to talk as if we are creating our genders by how we act, but I see that as rather we are choosing how well we conform to gender roles, and what is expected of us as a particular gender. We can not adhere to them. People who are female can adhere to male gender roles, and vice versa. However that doesn't mean we are actively creating gender. It is easy for someone who is cis to think that gender roles and gender are the same thing, but for someone who is trans it's a lot more difficult. The two really aren't the same.

at least she said "controversial"

I would have liked to watch this without all the cuts!

No no Butler. You're not getting away with that. You also say sex is a construct, not just gender.