If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here: i-would-prefer-not-to.com

Żiżek had been born into the wrong nose and now his hands subcosciously reject it and so on and so on

I love his raw humanity. No matter how high and advanced we aim to be our dirty, filthy raw, small creature humanity is who we truly are. I hope to never ever forget this. He pulls me to where there is the most clarity. He does this most effectively for me.

As a trans woman, I find this refreshingly humanizing -- here Zizek is seeing the decision of transition divorced from any cultural baggage, simply as a quite radical decision a person makes to themselves. It's ironic that his closing sentence hews so close to the liberal platitude of "you're so brave!" yet it is entirely divorced from any narrativising, and is predicated on something (compared to the cynicism inherent in 'braveness') much more fulfilling, optimistic, and universal.

“The greatness of transgender is for me precisely that it brings us very close to this radical level of freedom.” - Slavoj Zizec

Zizek would make a great baseball coach

So, from my limited understanding, Zizek does not buy ideas like gender fluidity because he feels that it does not demonstrate the same overwhelming need for assuming one's correct identity. I suppose you could counter by saying that genderfluid people might feel a different overwhelming need, not to transition to one identity, but to be allowed to express the identity they feel at a certain point in time. It's not an overwhelming need to make a transition to a specific social role, but to be allowed to freely express a social role based on a need that is similarly strong, but changes regularly. On the other hand, if the need to express oneself as gender fluid is not as strong as the need to transition to a binary gender, why should we disregard it? Even if it's not as strong a need, it's still there.

i wish Caitlin Jenner wasn't the defacto icon for transgender :c

The reason I love this guy is by loving him I accept myself way better in the relationship to other people.

Slavoj Zizek on Joe Rogan, I want.

I think it is really interesting how he talks about it being a nessecity, not having a choice

The comparison to being a resistance fighter in an occupied country is actually genius, I’m gonna steal that

In picking one of the archest neoliberal trans icons to appear in the thumbnail who ever is in charge of creating this clip is making a different argument than zizek seems to be making.

'And so on.' - Zizek, Slavoj

Does anyone know from which conference this fragment is taken?

Zizek says trans rights

Reality is not easily ignored. It's a job that requires lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of words.

I really love the way that he thinks about gender and sexuality, as making a “choice” about yourself that is in reality not at all choice but an essential part of who you are. However, and I have read very little Zizek, so what I am about to say might be refuted or mentioned somewhere else in his almost daunting body of work, I think his assertion that by claiming fluidity this person is avoiding the hard choice of self is just laying out two or three boxes (man, woman, neither) and then not contemplating whether or not there may be more boxes than what he is claiming. If someone is assigned man at birth, undergoes HRT to acquire a “female” body, and then identifies as non-binary, I don’t think that is some denial of the choice, but the choice itself. Whether or not it fits within the standard boxes that western society payed out to us is irrelevant to the fact that they have made that choice. Again, I am an idiot and also a teenager, I don’t actually know anything, so if I horribly misrepresented his position then I am sorry.

I wonder how many times he gets pink eye. I like his last line though. About radical freedom and how it's connected to the act of transitioning.

u know maybe instead of summarizing personal interpretations in the comments, it might be better if we asked specific questions and added specific pieces of knowledge about parts of this talk. just an idea

Can anyone explain me the kruschev and Crimea joke ?

He should be a poster man for covid 19. What NOT to do. 😅😅😅🤣🤣😂😂

what is the full talk?

0:34 - 0:40

I dont fully understand zizek here, and i won't make any critisisms. All i know is i am a man who is bi, and likes to look slightly ambiguous. I like my more feminine characteristics (long hair, naturally red lips, skinny frame ect.). I dont feel strongly enough to go through a radical chance, but i enjoy being in this middle grey area, but i still consdier myself to be a man, even if a more feminine one. I always assumed this means im "gender fluid" but i have no idea. All i know is i think of myself in more masculine/feminine ways at different times. Sometimes ill feel more masculine and, for a bit, only find women attractive. Other times i feel more feminine and id love to be with a guy. If someone else is more familiar with the terms and can give a solid guess as to where i fit in the terminology, id love to hear your thoughts. I just assumed this is what gender fluidity is and i can choose to act/dress more straight or fruity depending on how i feel at the time.

they interrupted him at the fucking best part,

Baaed from what I understood, the decision of switching to another gender identity is a very radical form of freedom that requires episodes of psychological crises to fully finalize. Additionally, one also needs to feel the NECESSITY of becoming trans in making that decision. In summary, being trans is one of the most important decisions one can make during their life and because of that, it needs to be taken very seriously. The only problem is that some people DO NOT take it seriously and play around too much with gender identities to the point where it unfortunately becomes a laughing stock.

Can someone clarify Zizek's claim that starts at 1:45?

Wow! This is such a compassionate and wise statement about gender.

I love him I appreciate his intellect but he just makes me laugh for so many reasons xD I love him and so on and so forth

if i wanted to express the femmnine side of myself, which feels strong. Id cross dress but i would not define myself as trans would i define myself as genderfluid? im not sure?

Can someone please summarise what he said?

Zizek should not touch his face so much during a Pandemic

That thumbnail is hilarious.

me encanta la cursed energy de ir encocao y en chándal a la conferencia HSHSJSJDVDNSVDNFF en fin

I love listening to him talk, for me his ideas are a thing to follow, second only to Lavey, but that's me, others here would put him first of course.

Doctor Zoidberg?

"Do I choose this type of coke?" He-he. Type of coke.

He hits the nail on the head, transgender rights are a matter of freedom, the choices will be subconscious and sometimes radical like love or other matters of identity, but that's what freedom is make choices as we want them, regardless of their subconcious or whatever origin they have.

This video gave me an outlook I did not have before, even though I have debated these issues on multiple occasions. Not sure whether I agree or not with that new outlook (it is something I will have to debate and research myself) but for that seed I am very grateful to Dr Zizek (and I say that as a person who was routing for Dr Peterson :). Well constructed and thought out arguments. Thank you!

can we talk about the thumbnail

It seems like a misunderstanding of what "gender is a construct" means, all it means is that we as a group apply labels based on certain characteristics and some people are given a label that doesn't fit with their characteristics or their ideal characteristics of self. So yes changing certain characteristics to be closer to their ideal self which involves changing how society labels you would feel freeing.

Jeez...As an East European I can understand Polish and English but (in general) when listening to non-native English speaker (I don't mean especially Poles) it cause in me unusual strong frustration and pressing a subtitle button it is like a small defeat for me... but thing get worse when even automatic subtitle function can't recognize a single word(

I wish I had the thinking power of Zizek.

I assume Slavoj by saying "multiple identities" refers to gender fluidity (even if he's talking about sexual orientation afterwards). But it is not about changing the identities and switching between them occasionally but rather refusing to claim any gender identity constructed by the culture. Dualism very rarely applies to human behavior (they're good vs. they're bad, they're straight vs. they're gay and so on) so why it has to apply when it comes to gender identity? Also, the "pain of transition" probably differs from one country to another (e.g. Thailand vs. Saudi Arabia), ergo it is defined by the culture itself.

My issues with trans activism [obviously, not trans people] is the widespread conflation of sex & gender on three levels: rhetorically, conceptually, and [especially] terminologically and the consequences of this conflation which is the fact that a materialist analysis of gender not possible without being erroneously accused of “essentialism” or having a phobia. The idea that being a man or a woman is based on a persons subjective self-concept a very recent development. Gender was commonly understood to refer to the constructs of “masculine” & “feminine”, which certain *things* [e.g. words, behaviors, social roles, abilities, mannerisms, clothing/fashion, names, personality traits, professions etc] are categorized based on what is deemed socially/culturally appropriate for either men or women, respectively. Man and woman are not types of gender but the specific words for male and female humans.

Imagine this man as a third base coach.

Some of his claims would sound very right wing if expressed by anyone else. Here, Zizek implies that there is determinism in "radical" gender choices, but in dismissing fluidity, he is confusing transgender with queer identity. Though often traumatic, not every gender choice is necessarily "full of pain".

This is literally the best take I have heard on transgenderism ever.

So interesting. He’s so famous for his contrarianism and it can become a bit fatiguing. But here it’s given me a big avenue to explore this subject from the perspective of a cis gender male heterosexual (as I understand he is but correct me if I’m wrong). “Choose yourself” “Radical choices” “Radical level of freedom” He’s acknowledging the bravery of these hard choices and it’s helpful to consider that no matter what side you’re on.

Amazing train of thoughts

I don't have any idea of what he's trying to say.

Wtf ist that thumbnail xD Guess I came for the thumbnail and stayed for what he had to say

Zizek will have to wear boxing gloves in order to not constantly touch his face during this pandemic.

What makes him think that genderfluid people don't have the same urge? The only difference is that it changes from day to day (or weeks, or months...) and, naturally, since we haven't reached a level of transhumanism that is sophisticated enough, some genderfluid people don't surgically transition every day... Gender is contingent, social, genderfluid people are democratising the definition of gender, by expanding it to their subjective experience... To live through this era is fascinating - perhaps we will realise the futility of gender in the future (or not)

Zizek said trans rights!

For me "being" bisexual there was always an essentialist idea of my "being", an ontological claim, but also a certain freedom (that was also not freedom), I was still going to be essentially who I was no matter what. But I would also say that having flexibility has given me more of a phenomenological perspective that gay and straight people don't have. I could more easily say "this is an aspect of myself". But I saw what Zizek noticed that most LGBT people tend to essentialize and universalized even in ways which are irrational projections onto history and cross culturally. Therefore I actually met no LGBT postmodernists, or very few. Perhaps the most Postmodern LGBT activists was Peter Tatchell but he fell out of favor precisely because he saw LGBT within a context and not so naively universal.

Hes telling the runner to steal home.

I don't get why are compulsory decisions are the "truly free" ones? So Zizek says: 1) German Idealism and Freud allow us to explain in a materialistic way how something contingent can be experienced as a predestination/a necessity. 2) Couple examples of compulsory acts are given, with assertion that they are "highest free acts" - examples are resisting enemy occupants and falling in love. Does it show even a little bit why something done out of compulsion becomes a truly free act? Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

Is a doctrine the female or transgendered version of a doctor ? 🤔 ° ° °

The thing I like to think about is not being transgender itself but rather transhumanist. I make this point because while not all transhumanists are transgender all transgender people are the first stages of transhumanism. The ideal, that no matter what prison you are born into, you can be free while in the same body through augmentation. Like for me, and I mean this as no joke as I myself struggle with my gender. I want to have different legs. The human foot is basically a hand. Our ancestors used our feet to grab and balance in the trees. Now while that is fine and good for our ancestors who weren't bipedal it leads to problems for their descendants, us, who walk on two legs. Our feet, should look like other animals who're are bipedal, who mostly walk on their toes. This is why feet for amputees do not look like normal human feet. The rest is not on a foot but rather a specific point for balance. Now I know some of these limbs also flex to adapt but that's also because of how we walk with feet that shouldn't be bipedal. And the hand feet we have are essentially torture devices. They are the leading result of hip, spine, and knee degeneration over time. Why should it not behoove science to work on ways to improve ourselves? The body is not what makes us human, it is our brains. If you stab a man in the heart he may live, if you remove the brain he will die. Even if you can electrically keep all other systems going, they're not human. The human animal is defined by it's decent from our ancestors and our 'intelligence'. I believe it is our responsibility as humans to struggle against the chains of nature. I hope that before I die I witness the killing of death. If I could be immortal in a cyborg body I'd do it in an instant. Immortality is the blessing every historian, scientist, and philosopher should work toward. If we could crush death then we kill a constant of the universe, which is entropy. Sentience should be the power to wield reality as ones pen scribbling whatever the ink will make. Chaos is not death, it is opportunity. Identity is as far as autonomy can be defined. It is the self determination that I am what I am. I am who I want to be. It is the philosophy of Nietzsche's Ubermensch before his sister bastardized it. All humans should live as if we are all gods. Not that we have supreme authority over others but of ourselves. If you wish to be a fat glutton be the god of decadence. If you wish to be a soldier, then be a god of war. If you are an artist you are a god of creation. If you are a poet you are a god of language. Whatever you are you must believe you are yourself superior for your abilities and intelligence and you will become superior. However, do not let such a state go to your head. After all, only a god can kill a god.

If “COVID-19” was a person.

"o que mais me fascina é certo antagonismo imanente: A ideologia "oficial", digamos assim, do (movimento) LGBT+ (e que eu digo sem nenhuma ironia, de forma benevolentemente) é algo que Judith Butler teria chamado de Historicismo: "ideologia de gênero não é biologicamente determinada, é socialmente e historicamente construída através de jogos performativos e discursivos" e assim por diante... Ok, mas o que me fascina tanto [...] é que muitos destes caras que de fato fazem operações de transição de sexo falam uma linguagem que é exatamente o oposto, que é brutal e abertamente proibido pela teoria e discurso Historicista de hoje, (é uma) linguagem essencialista: Repetidamente, pessoas que, por exemplo, passam por essa dolorosa operação de "homem" para "mulher", notei como quase sempre usam o termo "estou tão grata que agora finalmente eu vivo em um corpo no qual eu deveria ter nascido". A linguagem que eles falam é puro Essencialismo, no sentido de que é como se houvesse uma orientação sexual basilar inscrita, seja lá como vamos chamar, "alma" (?), mas que somente houve um "erro ontológico" no meu nascimento por eu ter nascido em um sexo errado. Eu não acho que isso é simplesmente ideologia, o que é crucial. Eu penso que precisamente a referência à psicanálise, ao idealismo alemão, permite-nos explicar de forma materialista como algo que é contingente (opcional) pode, ainda assim, ser experimentado como uma predestinação, como uma necessidade. Tal como aprendemos com Freud e com os grandes idealistas alemães, nossas escolhas verdadeiramente livres não são escolhas conscientes. Nossas escolhas conscientes são bastante superficiais. O que quero dizer é que - se isso soar abstrato para vocês, permitam-me usar meus velhos exemplos: não é que as ações mais livres são precisamente sempre experienciadas como necessidade? Por exemplo, vamos dizer que seu país é ocupado, e você tem que se juntar à resistência. Você iria pois você sente que você trairia a si mesmo se não o fizesse. Não é uma escolha do tipo "bolo de morango" ou "bolo de baunilha", ou sei lá, é "eu faço isso porque não posso fazer outra coisa". Outro exemplo patético, pense sobre amor: [...] Você nunca se apaixona no sentido de "estou procurando uma mulher bonita aqui, um cara bonito lá; deixe-me fazer uma escolha" - Não! De repente você percebe que você está apaixonado. A decisão nunca é feita no tempo presente. O que estou dizendo é que esse Essencialismo torna isso claro: se você quer mudar sua identidade sexual (seja com uma cirurgia de transição ou de maneira mais superficial travestindo-se), [...] (isso) continua sendo uma escolha livre e contingente, mas deve aparentar ser para você uma necessidade. Porque? Porque isso é uma decisão radical. Em decisões cotidianas tipo "eu escolho agua ou Coca-Cola ou sei lá..." você já está constituído enquanto Sujeito, e você só faz escolhas. Mas decisões radicais são, num sentido bobo (de dizer), "você escolhe a Si mesmo". É isso que estou tentando fazer: o que eu não engulo na ideologia LGBT+ padrão é essa "identidade fluída" e "feliz", como "Eu posso ter múltiplas identidades; hoje eu sou gay, amanhã eu sou heterossexual, então eu pulo daqui pra lá, e etc., e etc..." - Não! Isso subestima a dor, a dramática decisão de assumir determinada identidade sexual. E, a grandiosidade dos transgêneros é justamente nos aproximar desse nível radical de liberdade!

Cool! I'm happy hearing what he had to say. I am also on a long journey with my gender and I agree with him on these points.

Why is he licking his lips in the thumbnail lmao

Bad example of "essentialism". People fall in and out of love all the time. Love along with anger are very fluid emotions.

just to clarify: the radical free decision a person makes is, whether to transision or not, but not if you are transsexual in the first place. I dont't know if I got this wrong, but to me it seemed that to Zizek, transsexual people choose to be man or woman, but on a subconscious level, which is then justified by saying "nature made a mistake, I should have been born this way" in order to cope with the radical desicion. Gender is - at least from my expieriance - something that is engraved into our biological existance and not to be confused with gender roles.

We agree that gender is different from the biological sex, why would a person needs to change their biological sex to fit the gender they think they are? I don't understand.

Someone needs to tell Slavoj that we've heard all of this and are looking forward to the next evolution of his considerations

I love the story of the person who did not feel `complete` until he had one of his lower legs amputated. There are so many things we cannot chose, or control, so freedom is acceptance of the diversity that this has already brought to our collective consciousness.

Next, a must see! Karen Davis' you tube channel, You're Kidding, Right? 4 interviews w Trans Widow, "When Your Husband Transitions"

I agree, but I fail to see how German idealism is necessary to make that point.

Even if I disagree with him, I can't help but love him

Great opinion. I agree. I can understand someone who feels that is not in a body that "matches" his/her identity. But it's not simply goes buy something at the store in the corner.

He is so amazing. Beutifuly said.

He's making a weird point at the end, looking at fluid identities as being prescriptive rather than descriptive (and thus not being genuine in his opinion). To me it seems like the complete opposite - it's not people waking up in the morning and deciding to be straight/gay today, but noticing that at certain periods of time the have different tendencies. You could form a similar argument about rigid identity being prescriptive - one calls themselves "straight" because they were attracted to the opposite sex up until now, but they can't really know what the future holds, so by identifying as straight you already decide who you're gonna fall in love with. I don't think this kind of logic holds

He's basically saying that there are transgender people with intrinsic biological conditions that cause gender dysphoria and ideologues like Judith Butler who make the wrong assertion that gender identity is socially constructed and malleable and that underestimate the real pain that comes with having gender identity disorder.

Ladys & Gents , I believe we got the "right, double left, right, double left again ,right, both hands " for the first time ever recorded . From the 33sec.

and so on and so forth

All he said was undergoing that operation is a big decision, not a small one. Wow.

Zizek uses the Hegelian concept of freedom (as "understanding of necessity") as a theoretical tool for explaining transgenderism. According to him, a transgender individual's decision of changing sexual identity is the most radical expression of individual freedom, because it expresses an inner necessity for that individual; it's not a random, or arbitrary choice, and it doesn't need to be the latter kind of choice, in order to be a free choice. Quite the contrary, its being the recognition of a personal necessity is what makes this choice a radically liberating one for those who make it. One valuable aspect of Zizek's viewpoint is his rejection of the fashionable historicist theory of "gender as social/cultural construct". It's remarkable that Zizek dares to state the rather non-controversial fact, that what transgender people say about themselves actually matches his "essentialist" (neo-Hegelian) view, and does NOT match the fashionable "social construct", "gender fluidity", ideology. For any unbiased observer, this is rather obviously so. Still, what is remarkable here is that Zizek - always the iconoclast - is not afraid to stand up (again!) to political correctness. Given the prevailing climate in Academia nowadays, this is intellectual courage. Having said that, Zizek's limitations show up here too. As on other issues, he provides a valid criticism of a fashionable ideological standpoint; the problem, however, is with what comes next, which is often just an affirmation of his own biases (e.g., the fascination with Hegel, or in other contexts, the fascination with Marx's revolutionary enthusiasm). The viewpoint that Zizek stated here is problematic on its own, it raises questions that he, far from answering, is not even raising. The same happens when he states his socialist/revolutionary views. They are extremely problematic, they raise serious questions that Zizek is not able to deal with. To deal seriously with such questions can (in my view) only lead rational persons to turn their back on Zizek's own kind of biases. About transgenderism: what sense does it make for any person to say that their psychological identity is that of the other biological gender? This is a serious, analytic philosophy, question. If one has experienced only belonging to one biological gender (e.g., male), if the other biological gender (female) is known to this person externally only (as seen from outside), what does it mean to claim the psychological identity of that gender? Is that, in any way, more than a sort of dissatisfaction with one's own identity, coupled with an envy of the other sex (without having experienced that other gender's identity "from the inside", but having only watched it externally)? An envy, a copycat syndrome? What sense does the often quoted (by Zizek too!) statement "I was born in the wrong body" make, when it is made by a person who a. has a perfectly healthy body (nothing wrong with it physically), b. never experienced living in the other sex kind of body, and yet c. wants to modify his body to match the other sex body-type? Anyone who has studied analytic philosophy will understand that these are serious questions; if you only have shallow excuses for those statements, instead of actually making sense of them, then you simply don't make sense. E.g., saying "well, that's how they feel" is not answering the above questions, and accordingly, leaves those transgender statements exposed as senseless. For those who got tired of this philosophical inquiry, consider what the famous Caitlyn Jenner had to say, AFTER completing transition: "Now I have to LEARN what it is to be a woman, it's not simply wearing make-up, jewelry and dresses". Jenner's words. What it means: the desire for transition, which evidently preceded it, does not, and cannot, involve an actual knowledge, or awareness, of what it actually means to belong to the other gender. So, what sense does it make to say "I belong to THAT gender", when the experience, and awareness, of what belonging to that other gender actually means, does NOT exist? No sense. Back to the beginning: what about that "personal necessity"? It is indeed how transgender individuals feel; an intense, compulsive feeling, but one that doesn't make sense rationally. As such, according to both Hegel and analytic philosophers, this cannot be genuine freedom. I'll make it very clear: if for some transgender people what works is gender transition, so be it, I'm happy for them. However, for many it's not so; for them, the psychological problems known under the name "gender dysphoria" persist (or, worsen) after transition. And for the fans of PC: by cuddling people who actually have a psychological problem, by telling them "you're fine, everything's fine, we're with you!", you are not doing them any favor. This fundamental intellectual dishonesty is NOT a way to help people who are in need of help.

Hmm i agree with most of this video except at the end when he says that he doesnt buy into the free flowing of sexuality. For me at least, my sexuality is very fluid as he describes so i could go almost a week not being attracted to men and then another week being attracted to men exclusively.

his manner of speaking remender me the iron sheik

I mean i don't understand

The way he talks makes my eyes water.

it is interesting to me that he says that this is counter to “mainstream gender ideology”. me, and most other trans people i know have a quite common perception on what it means to be trans, but i don’t find this contentious at all, and a lot of them wouldn’t. this seems to be perfectly consistent with the way most trans people perceive themselves. at least those who agree with a judith butler way.

its expression of radical freedom but is it really necessity and is it possible to change sex at all completely. i think its wrong to mess around with nature

Why are the comments filled with COVID-19 jokes?

We dont choose our sexuality or sex

The comments here are some of the funniest ive ever seen

We need labels so we can judge

I wonder how Slavoj Zizek is handling not touching his face 😂😂😅😅stay healthy, beard daddy ❤️❤️ edit: because of coronavirus

So true, I was born intersex and trans.always was! Much love, Mia. 😇

this is what i've been trying to say but when i do i get attacked! these people who call us the bio-essentialists for saying that certain personality traits or style preferences or preferences for looking a certain way doesn't negate the fact you are a man or a woman. a woman who likes short hair, sports bras that compress her breasts, blue jeans, and mechanics is still a woman! in fact its bio-essentialist to say that she is less than a woman for not conforming to the temporally contingent social contructs set by whichever society she was born into! for example, men used to wear wigs and heels and poofy shirts in some countries. women used to be admired for being fat with facial hair in some countries. these social constructs of what makes something masculine or feminine or what is expected of you change with time and with each society! people always try to say well "gender is a spectrum" no. personality is a spectrum. or rather, a grab bag. sex is binary, as it is in every other mammal species on earth.

Matter is good, it's not a prison for the spirit.

if slavov were really smart he'd invest in a handkercheif and/or some decongestant. no hand shake, thanks let's just wave at each other

1 of the few men on Earth that I can trust. He speaks truth. I feel & agree with everything he says that's how I know he's a man of sense, hard to come by. Take care Zizek, I'd like to meet you someday.

"avoid touching your face"

How many times does he scratch/rub his nose, does he abuse opiates?

Interesting to hear someone really take “trans is not a choice” seriously in a critical analysis.