What the Butler wrote…
By: Eloïse Speight
Tags: Gender, Feminism, Censorship, Judith Butler, Guardian

What the Butler wrote…

Or… the censoring of Judith Butler by the Guardian and what she really said… Eloïse Speight Sep 8·7 min read

The philosopher Judith Butler. Photograph: Stefan Gutermuth

On the 7th of September 2021, the Guardian US edition published an interview Jules Gleeson did with Professor Judith Butler (archive link). In a long-ranging interview she touched on many subjects, but by far the most controversial part was her discussion of how transphobia supports and defends fascism. Indeed it was so controversial that following publication the whole section of the interview was removed.

But what was it Judith Butler said? And was it that controversial?.

She was asked the question:

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. This year’s furore around Wi Spa in Los Angeles saw an online outrage by transphobes followed by bloody protests organized by the Proud Boys. Can we expect this alliance to continue?

So yes, pretty hard-hitting, but is there any truth to the question or is it simply a case of begging the question.

Anti-transgender feminist groups have undoubtedly been lending support to Christian Fundamentalist groups who are opposed to LGB and in some cases rights such as access to safe abortion. Many of the U.K. legal proceedings have involved a ‘christian fundamentalist’ lawyer who has also argued ‘anti-feminist’ cases including seeking to restrict access to contraception for under 16s without parental knowledge and to refuse an abortion for a woman where the biological father disagreed. Does this indicate sympathy for their causes? It’s something open to debate, many would argue it is just an alliance of convenience but (IMO) it’s a reasonable question to ask of a philosopher.

The question also mentioned the Wi Spa, so a(very) short history of the “Wi Spa incident” is in order. In late June, a video was posted on the internet of an irate woman loudly complaining to the staff at a spa in Koreatown L.A. that a trans woman (I can’t remember if in the video she says trans woman or man) had exposed herself and demanding the spa remove the trans woman. At the time it was unknown who the trans woman was, or even if there were any trans women at the spa at the time. Following the incident, demonstrations erupted outside the spa as anti-trans demonstrators clashed with pro-trans demonstrators and the demonstrations turned violent. While it appears that initially the demonstrations were organised by women, there is no doubting that “far-right” activists were involved.

Early in September, it was revealed that someone, apparently a trans woman, had been charged in connection to the incident following several witnesses corroborating the initial account. It appears that this development is the justification for the removal of the whole section of the interview: but was that justified? As seen from the original author’s tweet, she offered to rewrite or if the Guardian felt the need to, they could also have added a context to the question and noted the subsequent developments.

So what did Judith Butler write in reply? In my opinion, Butler’s response was nuanced. Indeed her reply didn’t contain any reference to specific events nor referred to individuals, but ideologies. (Note I’ve reordered the three paragraphs to address them in a different order)

(1) It is very appalling and sometimes quite frightening to see how trans-exclusionary feminists have allied with rightwing attacks on gender. The anti-gender ideology movement is not opposing a specific account of gender, but seeking to eradicate “gender” as a concept or discourse, a field of study, an approach to social power. Sometimes they claim that “sex” alone has scientific standing, but other times they appeal to divine mandates for masculine domination and difference. They don’t seem to mind contradicting themselves.

Here she’s talking about the wider ‘anti-gender’ ideology and what she sees it as — an opposition not just to trans people being accepted according to their gender identity rather than physiological sex but to the whole concept of gender. This (she argues throughout her work) is detrimental to women’s and LGB rights. But, she argues, that anti-gender ideology also draws on “divine mandates” of masculinity and so conversely femininity. The anti-gender ideology is contradictory.

It is then hardly controversial to draw comparisons: trans-exclusionary feminists recently went to an employment tribunal to (successfully) argue that a belief in (biological) sex as being binary and immutable was a belief which had the status of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Literally, their argument could be distilled to a belief that “‘sex’ alone has scientific standing”.

What was being considered ‘appalling’ was lending support to these “rightwing attacks on gender” (and I do not think she was suggesting that they supported physical violence towards trans people) because they *will* ‘turn around and eat your face’.

(3) The anti-gender movement circulates a specter of “gender” as a force of destruction, but they never actually read any works in gender studies. Quick and fearful conclusions take the place of considered judgments. Yes, some work on gender is difficult and not everyone can read it, so we have to do better in reaching a broader public. As important as it is, however, to make complex concepts available to a popular audience, it is equally important to encourage intellectual inquiry as part of public life. Unfortunately, we are living in anti-intellectual times, and neo-fascism is becoming more normalized.

My reading of this paragraph is that Judith Butler is saying that the anti-gender movement has formed to fight a “spectre”. Just like the spectre of communism, a bogyman has been created to fight against, and that bogyman is called gender. The problem is, that (according to Butler) the people fighting against “gender” have not read widely enough to actually understand what is meant by “gender”.

The second part of the paragraph is decrying that we are living in times when instant solutions to complex problems are favoured. Instead of asking and inquiring “what is the real cause of this problem” — something which requires time and consideration — many people are looking for, and are accepting tabloid answers.

(2) The Terfs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact (such as Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, EM Hammonds or Anne Fausto-Sterling) in favor of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism. So they will not be part of the coalition that seeks to fight the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times. So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

So this is the controversial paragraph. It has been claimed that in it she is stating that TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) are fascists — but only a very superficial reading of what she said would lead to that conclusion.

The first sentence can be distilled down to: “go away and read some more”.

So they will not be part of the coalition that seeks to fight the anti-gender movement.

So here, by “anti-gender” Butler isn’t referring exclusively to the (so-called) “transgender debate” … that is simply part of something much wider. While not directly saying it, read with the first sentence this can be taken to mean that, while TERFs think they are fighting against trans women in “female” spaces because they have failed to accept the works of feminist philosophy, they have failed to understand that their fight is undermining the fight to protect women’s and LGB rights. You can not (effectively) fight against, for example, the Texas abortion bill when the justification for that is the same ideology that you are using for your own trans-exclusionary policy.

The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times.

Again this doesn’t just refer to anti-transgender policies. It’s talking about the rise (especially in America) of the rollback of rights for women and LGB people.

A belief that homosexual relationships are a form of “unnatural love” that biology says that the only valid union is between someone with small gametes and someone with large gametes — based on anti-gender ideology.

A belief that a married woman is the “property” of her husband — based on anti-gender ideology.

A belief that women do not make good leaders and that their place is in the home — based on anti-gender ideology.

So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

The stacking of the supreme court with conservative judges for instance means that yes, your desired trans-exclusionary policies will be ruled constitutional; but so will anti-abortion policies.

So how can you be part of the coalition of feminists, LGBTQ+ rights, anti-racist, and anti-violence campaigners; when your very ideology aligns with those they are campaigning? While TERFs may have come from radical feminist roots; are you really still a radical feminist when you require the support of anti-feminists to achieve your aims?