The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[....]

Please provide the Butler citation, I need to see this in context. I'm going to go over the citation slowly.

Let's see what Judith Butler has to say on the topic:

I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that.

Now we all know that Butler denies that gender is "an essential and firmly fixed sense of self." To affirm this kind of sense of self is essentialism, on the face of it. But what does it mean that gender is not a choice? It just means that Butler is a compatibilist: we determine our own choices, yes, but all of our choices are co-determined by social factors. MATERIAL CONDITIONS, if you will. Now, most of us don't feel like we chose our genders. I certainly don't. But if you believe in free will at all, it does seem like we do genders to some degree. A person's genes might even codetermine their gendered behaviors. But I believe that behavior defines gender, and I believe that our behavior is free, to some extent. Maybe Butler does believe that gender is necessarily completely predetermined, but she never says that. Anyway, I believe in the idiosyncratic view that gender identity is both free and predetermined. Furthermore, I have unconditional respect for every other person's identity: if someone identifies as a particular gender I will always recognize and accept them as the gender they identify as. So if gender is a choice, it is a choice I respect unconditionally.

Some trans people thought that in claiming that gender is performative that I was saying that it is all a fiction, and that a person’s felt sense of gender was therefore “unreal.”

I never said this. Gender has a social reality. Our behaviors really are our gender identities.

That was never my intention. I sought to expand our sense of what gender realities could be. But I think I needed to pay more attention to what people feel, how the primary experience of the body is registered, and the quite urgent and legitimate demand to have those aspects of sex recognized and supported.

I did not mean to argue that gender is fluid and changeable (mine certainly is not).

I have to interpret her as meaning that gender is not fluid and changeable in the majority of people. Nearly everyone actually. This is true. But I think Butler has to admit that we do in fact all act in feminine and masculine ways throughout all of our lives. The least we can say is that no one has ever successfully been recognized as performing multiple genders in succession. But I personally believe that nothing, in principle, prevents a person from changing their gender, precisely because of the real ontological character of behavior. Our behavior always changes, and our identity would also change if we identified differently. But no one actually does that. Take me for example: I've been a feminine man all my life. So to explain how we do in fact persist as members of one gender throughout our lives I introduce the self-image. Behavior accounts for gender expression and self-image accounts for gender identity. That's my translation of my terms into yours. Now there's nothing in Butler's view that says a person's gender identity, their self-image, can't change. I don't think it's even possible to prove that self-image can't change. All images can change. But the fact is, no one's self-image has actually ever changed. Even if someone's gender did change fluidly, no one would understand that they were even doing this, because the gender binary only allows the community to understand that people whose genders never change. So, in my opinion, society may someday evolve to the point where communities accept that a person's gender can change. At the very least, this is a good idea for science fiction. Don't steal it.

---

I'm a man. But I don't make any commitment to "acting like a man," whatever that means. I do what I want to do, which often, but not always, involves being interpellated as a man.

If you identify as a man you commit to being a man. If you commit to being a man you commit to acting like a man. Transitive property, yo. And it's true, as I said above, that sometimes even masculine men act feminine. But they continue to identify as masculine men, they have a masculine male self image, so they commit to performing masculine behavior.

I say my self identification is a commitment. Because my acts often differ from my self-image. I see myself as a feminine man. But sometimes I act phallic. But no matter how often I act phallic, I have made the commitment to act feminine, so I persist as a feminine man.


Self-image enables our identity to persist while our behavior constantly changes. That's clear. It is an empirical fact that everyone alternates between masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral actions, no matter their gender identity. That you to commit to acting like a man means that you aim to act like a member of the gender identity group, "men" that your self image represents. If you commit to acting like a masculine man, you only identify with your masculine actions. You might act feminine all the time. But you ignore that.

But this isn't the case for everyone. Consider the cases of transwomen who consider themselves to be highly butch. Your framework reduces them to… a feminine man? a masculine woman?

A butch transwomen is a masculine woman because all transwomen are women. That's simple. It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

By eliding behavior with expression, you demolish the importance of people's sense of belief in self.

I don't think anyone denies that behavior is a kind of gender expression. Can you find me someone who does? Notice you still haven't defined gender expression vs. gender identity.

And anyway, I'm actually putting more importance on people's sense of belief in the self. Judith Butler doesn't talk about self-image. Self-image is my original addition to Butler's view. I see myself as solving the metaphysical problem of how to explain persistence on Butler's view. Butler never actually address persistence in her work, as far as I know. But it's a problem for her view. One I solved.

In combining "allowing oneself to be interpellated as a gender" with "being that gender", you embrace such quasi-mystical ideas as that a drag performer is temporarily transmutated into a different gender during their performance.

I actually do believe this. Also I'm fairly certain Butler combines "interpellation as a gender" with "being that gender"

It also implies that if someone is say, in the closet, that their gender is reduced to what they're safely able to express.

Incorrect. If someone is in the closet that means society is forcing them to behave in a way contrary to their self-image.

This is precisely inverted. If Andrew Dice Clay told me that his actions were feminine, nobody would begrudge me denying it. I don't see any reason why this is any different, other than perhaps that I'm going off a more limited quantity of evidence.

You're saying my behavior is phallic? How? You think I'm not a feminist? How?

Worst of all, you never explained why I'm a transphobe!

 

[....]

Judith Butler on gender and the trans experience: "One should be free

Cristan Williams, a trans historian and journalist, interviewed Judith Butler about gender and the trans experience for The TransAdvocate. Cristan Williams: You spoke about the surgical intervention many trans people undergo as a “very brave transformation.” Can you talk about that?Judith...

www.versobooks.com

I found the article Beiser cited and look: it supports my view.

"No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support."

Butler here acknowledges that some people DO have a fluid sense of gender. Like me: I constantly alternate between masculine and feminine behavior. And she says we are FREE to choose the gendered behaviors we perform. And I agree, furthermore, that what is important is to allow people to act in any way they choose, as long as they do good. So I should be allowed to act girly as much as I want. I should be allowed to wear frilly dresses without people harrassing me or calling me a woman.

And here's a citation where she really roasts beiser:

"we are all ethically bound to recognize another person’s declared or enacted sense of sex and/or gender. We do not have to agree upon the “origins” of that sense of self to agree that it is ethically obligatory to support and recognize sexed and gendered modes of being that are crucial to a person’s well-being."

So again, it doesn't even matter if I've only ever acted phallic to you. You still should recognize and accept me as feminine because I identify as feminine. Otherwise you lack unconditional respect for the identities of others.

So your point about Clay is moot: If Clay did identify as feminine you would be obligated to accept him as such. But Andrew Dice Clay would never identify as feminine because his whole identity is based on his masculinity. I dare you to find a single man who identifies as feminine but acts too phallic to count as feminine.

 

[ghost]

I actually do believe this. Also I'm fairly certain Butler combines "interpellation as a gender" with "being that gender"

In the interviews I've seen, Butler generally studiously avoids characterizing anyone as "being" a certain gender. But I don't think it's possible to square this interpretation with her statement above:

I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that.

I think you're ignoring the necessarily complex sense of partial overlap that comes from being interpellated—it's not a binary thing where a person is interpellated cleanly as "man" and it either matches or fails to match their self conception.

---

"we are all ethically bound to recognize another person’s declared or enacted sense of sex and/or gender. We do not have to agree upon the “origins” of that sense of self to agree that it is ethically obligatory to support and recognize sexed and gendered modes of being that are crucial to a person’s well-being."

So again, it doesn't even matter if I've only ever acted phallic to you. You still should recognize and accept me as feminine because I identify as feminine. Otherwise you lack unconditional respect for the identities of others.

The reason I've been pushing on this is your insistence that action is coterminous with identity, which implies that a failure to successfully pass constitutes a change in gender:

If you identify as a man you commit to being a man. If you commit to being a man you commit to acting like a man. Transitive property, yo.

Maybe it would help if you could explain what it means to "commit to acting like a man," once we strip out the normative elements that we're trying to rid ourselves of. To me, it doesn't seem like there's much of anything left at all.

 

[ghost]

The least we can say is that no one has ever successfully been recognized as performing multiple genders in succession.

i know like five people who have done this

 

[....]

In the interviews I've seen, Butler generally studiously avoids characterizing anyone as "being" a certain gender. But I don't think it's possible to square this interpretation with her statement above:


I think you're ignoring the necessarily complex sense of partial overlap that comes from being interpellated—it's not a binary thing where a person is interpellated cleanly as "man" and it either matches or fails to match their self conception.

You're going to have explain the complexities of interpellation, because I don't know what I'm missing here. What is overlapping partially in this context?

I've been very clear and consistent about this key claim in Butler: that any the community only accepts two genders: masculine man and feminine woman. Mainstream phallic culture fails to recognize everyone else. So even masculine women and feminine men fail to count as real people in the eyes of the masses.

The reason I've been pushing on this is your insistence that action is coterminous with identity, which implies that a failure to successfully pass constitutes a change in gender:

Nope. A failure to successfully pass means that one's gender remains the same while the community refuses to accept them as a member of the gender they identify with. The community fails to understand people who fail to pass. When a traditional man acts feminine, he feels he has failed as man. He doesn't feel that he literally is a woman. Like I said, our self-image enables our identity's persistence while our behavior changes. And even if my identity could change as fast as my behavior did, you still should accept me as feminine because I identify as feminine.

On an ontological level, my gender changes when my behavior does. But on a moral level, you should accept a person as a member of the gender they identify as, because you trust the other to honestly say what gender their self image represents. On my view, even persistence involves normative elements, because we should trust that the other's self-identifications, even though we can never directly experience their self-image.

Maybe it would help if you could explain what it means to "commit to acting like a man," once we strip out the normative elements that we're trying to rid ourselves of. To me, it doesn't seem like there's much of anything left at all.

Like I said, committing to acting like a man means performing the actions that define a man. I'm not trying to strip out normative elements. Why should I?

i know like five people who have done this

So you agree that gender can change. I don't know if Butler believes that gender can change, but I know you and I do, so why does it matter?

And you still haven't explained why I'm transphobic.

 

[shiels]

Shut the fuck up lads

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I am begging you to, please, read another book.

Consistently coming up with the most bourgeois insults possible.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Consider the cases of transwomen who consider themselves to be highly butch.

@padraig (u.s.) he used the wrong one. Please advise.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I've been very clear and consistent about this key claim in Butler: that any the community only accepts two genders: masculine man and feminine woman. Mainstream phallic culture fails to recognize everyone else. So even masculine women and feminine men fail to count as real people in the eyes of the masses.

Feminine men have been called effete for two centuries with the word referring to a consistent character trait rather than transient behaviour.

 

[IdleRich]

This red-pilled manosphere thing has grown so fast. When the first thread on the topic appeared on dissensus I had only the vaguest idea as to what it was about, it was there in the background but I really didn't know who Andrew Tate, to name one, was.

A year or two later and I can't get away from it, it fills my feed on every social media thing I use and every single video or link I see - even those which on the face of it are totally unrelated - has arguments in the comments where the sides are drawn along these lines. I guess part of it is my increasing awareness, but surely not all... it feels like it is somehow THE place where the culture war Is being fought, I guess it's always like this, the sides - liberal/con, left/right whatever you wanna call em - are always fighting but the front line moves so the arguments we see through which it's expressed change - and right now they are about whether or not it's gay to do the washing up.

 

[Murphy]

 

[ghost]

This red-pilled manosphere thing has grown so fast. When the first thread on the topic appeared on dissensus I had only the vaguest idea as to what it was about, it was there in the background but I really didn't know who Andrew Tate, to name one, was.

A year or two later and I can't get away from it, it fills my feed on every social media thing I use and every single video or link I see - even those which on the face of it are totally unrelated - has arguments in the comments where the sides are drawn along these lines. I guess part of it is my increasing awareness, but surely not all... it feels like it is somehow THE place where the culture war Is being fought, I guess it's always like this, the sides - liberal/con, left/right whatever you wanna call em - are always fighting but the front line moves so the arguments we see through which it's expressed change - and right now they are about whether or not it's gay to do the washing up.

i don't see any of this… i see occasional roman empire posting, trad architecture posting, and carnivory posting. but mostly I think you're on the wrong sites mate

 

[IdleRich]

i don't see any of this… i see occasional roman empire posting, trad architecture posting, and carnivory posting. but mostly I think you're on the wrong sites mate

I actually blame dissensus cos I'd never heard of these people, much less discussed them or wished out loud (ie by typing) that they would develop an excruciatingly painful strand of cunt cancer, until I saw all the cool kids of dissensians talking about them. And of course, after that I was obviously filled with a desire to know what I was missing out on and I wanted to be able to join in.

So I googled a few of these names and checked a few things to educate myself and then clearly the algorithm decided that I really needed to know everything about a kick-boxing cigar smoker with a Lloyd Grossmanesque speech impediment whose wit and wisdom strongly implies he took too many big hits to the head.

And then, as I said, I was persuaded to join this FB group called Must Man Harder Or The Queer Will Unpenis Me which consists of people collecting toxic male insecurity quotes and laughing at them, but, here's the thing, it may come from the opposite direction, but my feed is still filled with men saying "Real men get up at 4am to work out, kill a bear with their bare hands on the way home and then drag it back to their lair where they skin and gut it, roast it on an open fire for breakfast and then demand their bitches deal with the aftermath cos washing stuff is gay" - and regardless of the fact it's being presented for me to laugh at it's still very much there.

 

[line b]

My feed is also filled with manosphere stuff but its entirely my fault because Im obsessed with the little 10 second sigma edits or the snippets of real talk at the round table. I also dont really have patience for intelligent twitter so my feed is mostly just whatever is most viral across the site which is quite a bit of manosphere content

 

[line b]

Insane how front page twitter is just arguments about trans people/wokeness and porn links now. I shouldnt be but im amazed everytime i see it. A staggering amount.

 

[line b]

If we can ever get out of it theres going to be a great reckoning on the politics brainworms of the times. Were people this obsessed with politics in the 60s?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Were people this obsessed with politics in the 60s?

Nah, I think they were too busy supporting civil rights or protesting the Vietnam war to get involved with politics.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Could the men of Dissensus please encroach some feminine spaces over the next few days and report back whether their reception was positive, negative or neutral. I'm thinking haberdasheries, crystal shops, beaderies, knitting stores. The way to tell you're doing it right is that you're the only man there.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Could the men of Dissensus please encroach some feminine spaces over the next few days and report back whether their reception was positive, negative or neutral. I'm thinking haberdasheries, crystal shops, beaderies, knitting stores. The way to tell you're doing it right is that you're the only man there.

OK, but only if you go to a really, really hard pub by yourself and take 45 minutes to drink a pint.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

OK, but only if you go to a really, really hard pub by yourself and take 45 minutes to drink a pint.

Give me credit. It usually takes me an hour.