/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13217975]

Is gender performative? Is she right?

[Anonymous No.13217989]

[Anonymous No.13217994]

>>13217975
I only teach it to my high schoolers, because it negates materialism, and Cartesian dualism.

[Anonymous No.13218007]

Gender obviously is. Sex is not. All anyone can do is debate the toss between them

[Anonymous No.13218017]

>>13217975
Who cares?
The people most obsessed with delegitimizating gender are the people most beholden to it.

[Anonymous No.13218043]

> Is she right?
the answer to this is always no.

[Anonymous No.13218118]

>>13217994
You're part of the problem

[Anonymous No.13218122]

>>13218118
What gender are you after you die?

[Anonymous No.13218132]

>>13218122
Read Hegel

[Anonymous No.13218149]

>>13217975
Pretty much. Obvious there's "people who have penises" and "people who have vaginas", and on strictly physical terms that's a pretty strict binary (with the odd hermaphrodite thrown in), but all the norms of behavior and such that come with it (ie "people with penises like sports, so that's 'manly", or "people with vaginas like the color pink, so that's 'girly'") are just nonsense that arises for social and economic reasons. You "perform" masculinity or femininity by wearing certain clothes, speaking a certain way, etc, when there's no real reason you have to just because you have certain genitals.

[Anonymous No.13218183]

>>13218007
>Gender obviously is. Sex is not.
Sex can be performative too, insofar as sex characteristics are markers for gender assignation. The "It's a [insert gender here]!" cry at birth is like the original sin of gender as a performative inscription on the body. It then spans outwards from there, to gendered puberty traits, hormones, physical deteriorations (menopause & erectile dysfunction) and even into crises that are engineered to dictate and control bodies (the aids crisis amongst homosexuals, the fight for women's reproductive rights in america). The fact that biological sex is out there and exists does not have a monopoly over the way in which gender should operate within society.

[Anonymous No.13218256]

>>13218183
Is it the alcohol compromising me, or is most of of this a colossal non sequitur to what the other post was saying?

[Anonymous No.13218261]

>>13218132
What gender are you before you are born?

[Anonymous No.13218276]

>>13218118
Meh. I have to nod to the Liberal overlords once in awhile to maintain my job.

I do more than my share in other regards.

[Anonymous No.13218286]

Before touching any of these people, read Weininger. He anticipated all of this shit a century ago.

[Anonymous No.13218293]

>>13218256
Why? The other post claimed that 'sex' isn't performative. I argued otherwise. do try to keep up

[Anonymous No.13218350]

>>13217975
partially, but it's an evolutionary adaptation. knowing one's role and what to expect from others simplifies decision-making for every individual. everything is quid-pro-quo. those who lashed out against this prior to the industrial revolution would probably just die; the surplus that exists now enables unprecedented rates of antisocial behavior.
>>13218149
consciously breaking norms will always be more performative than adhering to them.

[Anonymous No.13218359]

yes but saying there's nothing behind gender performance is lunacy
>>13218149
>nonsense that arises for social and economic reasons
sense and nonsense arise for "social and economic reasons." so you have no right to say they're nonsense.
>>13217989
lol

[Anonymous No.13218361]

>>13218183
>The fact that biological sex is out there and exists does not have a monopoly over the way in which gender should operate within society.
This, for example. How is that a relevant response to what they said?

[Anonymous No.13218365]

>>13217975
Isnt reality

[Anonymous No.13218376]

>>13218149
do you consider dicklets have a penise in any sense?

[Anonymous No.13218401]

>>13218007
Gender is influenced by biological sex whether that be evolutionary pressure due to gender roles or the latter being influenced by it. A women ready for sex behaves similarly to a bitch in heat and that's a result of her neurochemistry.

[Anonymous No.13218409]

If Gender is real, what is Jesus' gender? Also needs citiation.

[Anonymous No.13218411]

>>13218401
Gentleman… easy on the vidiya.

[Anonymous No.13218417]

>>13218411
Embrace your body, tranny.

[Anonymous No.13218422]

>>13218417
>your
>MUH mybody
tranny double-triple agent propaganda detected

[Anonymous No.13218431]

>>13218149
>Obvious there's "people who have penises" and "people who have vaginas"

Imagine this being your entire understanding of sex.

Ever heard of this thing called birth? Last I checked, all healthy societies were structured around the fact of reproduction, its consequences, and the structures and laws that govern it. It's far from an afterthought.

Women and men are different. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.13218432]

*performs homosexuality*

[Anonymous No.13218443]

>>13217975
Moot point.
What would such a conjecture seek to change on the nature of gender and from where are the means supplied to do so?
The same could be said of all manner of human behavior. Is this from her observational comedy routine? Varying facets of performativism fluctuate on a subjective basis, their true extents beholding the soul of the individual.
She's employed presumed characterics of the gradient in order to subvert dogmatic conceptions of the whole they constitute.
Masses undoing masses terminates in the echo of a dead end.

[Anonymous No.13218446]

>>13217975
JUDITH

JYEEEUUUDDEEIIITTHHHA

[Anonymous No.13218452]

>>13218446
She has a strong jawline and the eyesocets than most of average white men

[Anonymous No.13218453]

>>13217975
I don't really give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.13218461]

>>13217975
No, just another demented leftist ideologue. If any of these people studied a real science they'd understand evolution and how deeply stupid they are.

[Anonymous No.13218467]

*proceeds to not give a shit and DABS on trannies*

[Anonymous No.13218471]

I'm a gay incel btw, how could I be a masculine top? Also I prefer cuddling than cocksucking and anal sex.

[Anonymous No.13218477]

>>13218286
Sounds interesting, any specific works you recommend?

[Anonymous No.13218485]

>>13218477
my twisted world

[Anonymous No.13218496]

this is about as ridiculous as saying fitness and physical health is performative, yes gender is embodied in actions but there must a gender identity that is pre-performative that is embodied in the first place. don't you think having a tube of meat between your legs is going to dictate how you act as opposed to not?

[Anonymous No.13218502]

>>13218496
>some people are just born to be fat!

[Anonymous No.13218506]

>>13218502
some are
some become fat because noxious shit is shoved down their throat. just like queers.

[Anonymous No.13218511]

>>13218132
>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.13218513]

Are there any books that deal with why retards lap up this obviously false gender nonsense?

[Anonymous No.13218554]

>>13217975
All thought and language is performative.

[Anonymous No.13218791]

>>13217975
Many people don't understand that Butler's work is deeper than that statement. It is about how and why we call things “the way they are”, especially those that are “naturally are”. It is not a permit for someone to become an attack helicopter, it is an explanation of how these permits are issued.

Moreover, gender problem doesn't require any “progressive” subjects. The initial question might be this: “Feminism is women's rights movement. Then what exactly constitutes a women?”

[Anonymous No.13218820]

>>13218513
I would specifically like to read the published works of the pioneering psychologist that defined a bunch (some ridiculous number like 87?) genders. I watched a documentary on him several years ago and but I cannot remember his name.

[Anonymous No.13218823]

>>13218452
She looks like Michael J. Fox is retaining water.

[Anonymous No.13218864]

>>13218791
>It is not a permit for someone to become an attack helicopter, it is an explanation of how these permits are issued.
stop kidding yourself. you know good and well that this faux objectivity of just describing practices is just an excuse to promote the practices you think are good. in this case, attack helicopters.

[Anonymous No.13218882]

>>13217975
>Is gender performative?
I found myself wanting to rephrase this and it wound up sounding a lot like your meme caption. That having been said, I can see that someone might take this position, but this completely disregards the natural link between gender and sex - which I believe to be too relevant to disregard.
>Is she right?
I fail to see the importance of her statement. What is the end goal of this line of reasoning? Historically, we have had a very rudimentary structure of gender that, rudimentary though it was, functioned well within the paradigm of human physiology. Now, it seems people want to philosophize on the topic and make both a wider and more thorough analysis on the topic - but any experts that I see expound on the topic seem to necessarily want us to all devolve into faggotry.

[Anonymous No.13218886]

>>13217975
took me ages but i finally found this pic where you can almost see her nipples through her shirt

[Anonymous No.13218893]

>>13218506
probably has something with what impregenants eat

[Anonymous No.13219210]

Anyone else think that the use of gender as a completely social thing is a useless term?
In what situation would knowing someone's "gender identity" be useful? In fact the whole idea that gender is seperate from biology was because a couple of intellectuals decided it would be, and since then there have been countless unproductive debates that never result in anything useful being concluded.

[Anonymous No.13219255]

>>13217975
>is a woman right
Almost never.

[Anonymous No.13219273]

Gender doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.13219286]

I can't even tell if that's a man or a woman and he (assuming it is a man, as one should always when the sex of the subject under discussion is left unspecified or indeterminate) wants to lecture me about gender (read: sex)? No thank you, sir. I believe I have a better idea on the subject than you do. As an aside, how does one become so confused as to mix up his confusion for expertise?

[Anonymous No.13219291]

>>13218149
Then how come transsexuals are so unconvincing and offputting?

[Anonymous No.13219369]

>>13217975
Look up Dr. Money, the man who coined the term gender. He really fucked up a whole family with his retarded gender theory.

[Anonymous No.13219583]

>>13218886

underrated

[Anonymous No.13219600]

>>13219210
Agreed.

[Anonymous No.13219613]

>>13217975
This is just a vaguely hidden /pol/ post OP, 10/10 bait though, shit seems to work every time.
Do the chapo guide to revolution post again one of these days, those are also always fun.

[Anonymous No.13219617]

>>13219369
Mate, however you feel about this shit you can't just throw away an entire field of study cause the guy who originated it was fucked in the head. That'd be like throwing away philosophy cause Socrates was a sperg.

[Anonymous No.13219621]

>>13219617
Not the guy you're replying to be Money proved himself that his own theories were wrong

[Anonymous No.13219687]

>>13219617
>you can't just throw away an entire field of study cause the guy who originated it was fucked in the head
It's a bad seed, no different from Freud and Psychoanalysis. Can you separate Money from his work any better than one can separate Freud from his?

[Anonymous No.13219722]

>>13218149
cringe

[Anonymous No.13219774]

>>13219291
They aren't. Stop being a straightbrained fucklord.

[Anonymous No.13219781]

>>13219774
I've seen people in public who were clearly men dressing as women
Call me a bigot but I don't think it's appropriate to do that in public, and it shouldn't be encouraged

[Anonymous No.13219787]

>>13219774
>They aren't
Nobody actually passes irl.

[Anonymous No.13219799]

>>13219687
No, but how does initial research being done unprofessionaly and unethically warrant throwing out an entire line of research?
>>13219621
The existence of trans people proved his theories wrong, that being said Money's research failing in its purpose does not mean that an entire field suddenly holds no value. As already said, unintentionally though, by >>13219687 , Freud's work being essentialy mostly hackwork does not disprove the entire field of psychology and psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.13219802]

>>13218477
Sex and Character

[Anonymous No.13219803]

>>13219787
Fuck, check out this hot biological woman. Unghhhh, I'm a biological essentialist so this is clearly a peak woman, check out those fucking hot double x chromosomes on this lass UUUUUUGGggggghhhhhhhhh.

[Anonymous No.13219818]

>>13219803
Carefully angled pictures with the lighting just right aren't real life anon. Nobody passes in real life

[Anonymous No.13219834]

>>13217975
Ah, the frame problem. NPC golems break down every single time, whilst spiritual people see the essence.

[Anonymous No.13219843]

Trannies are gross deviants and transexualism is a social virus. That such a phenomenon is encouraged in our society at all is evidence of the decay therein.

[Anonymous No.13219858]

>>13219818
Imagine actually believing this. Wouldn't want to live like you man, constantly on the lookout for who is and isn't a 'real' man or woman.

[Anonymous No.13219912]

>>13219858
You don't need to be on the lookout, because no-one passes in real life. The best you can hope for is an uncanny valley effect, where people you meet know something is wrong with you, but can't put their finger on what.

[Anonymous No.13219924]

>>13219912
Again, imagine actually believing this. Why do you think the word 'trap' is such a meme?

[Anonymous No.13219928]

>>13219803
those are some fat tits though

[Anonymous No.13219929]

>>13219924
Traps don't pass in real life, because nobody passes in real life.

[Anonymous No.13219934]

Did Butler have a mental breakdown in her teens?

[Anonymous No.13219945]

>>13219934
She was sexually abused by her rabbi

[Anonymous No.13219974]

>>13219945
u bes be rusin'

[Anonymous No.13220006]

>>13217975
No she's completely full of shit and is clearly mentally unstable just like so many other 2nd wave fem 'theorists'. You can see why many people invoke the idea of there being some kind of Judaic or 'cultural marxist' conspiracy in the universities- how else do you explain this kind of pomo nonsense STILL being considered gospel in certain areas of academia? For any rational non-ideological thinker, this shit doesn't even stand up on a single reading, it is empirically and philosophically untenable, and has certainly outstayed it's welcome. Ideas resting on a 'blank slate' reading of human psychology are already out of date by DECADES- social constructivist nonsense should have been thrown in the trash by the early 80s at the latest yet here it still is stronger than ever, infecting other disciplines. That the name of Judith Butler is being discussed and debated with an air of seriousness is an absolute offence against our intellectual culture.

[Anonymous No.13220040]

>>13220006
> 2nd wave

[Anonymous No.13220055]

>>13218149
The differences between men and women are literally encoded into the structure of the brain, a process which begins IN THE WOMB due to exposure to varying levels of hormones. Society recognises innate differences and then reflects them back. The differences don't originate inside society. Clearly! How willfully blind do you have to be to believe that gender is some cultural invention? Fuck.

[Anonymous No.13220056]

>>13220006
Based brainlet, where did you get the idea that Butler subscribes to the ‘clean slate’ theory? Saying that there is no gender identity behind its forms of expression is not the same thing as claiming that there is an absolute heterogeneity or blank canvas on which all gendered differences are then inscribed. Production is not the same thing as inscription, gender is “produced” through social dynamics and the normative conditions which govern them, both of which are presupposed through the more palpable category of biological sex. Using biology to make claims about how men and women differentiate themselves is an is/ought fallacy and always will be.

[Anonymous No.13220059]

>>13219774
Who are you calling a lord? My family lost their peerage four generations ago.

[Anonymous No.13220067]

>>13219210
Yes, it's a complete weasel word. We assign roles to sexes, not to "genders". People only ever said "gender" because sex became a rude word.

People have essentially worked themselves into a place where "man" and "woman" mean nothing. We can't say a woman is a person with an XX chromosome or a vagina because that's transphobic and we also can't say that a woman is someone who fuckin does the vacuuming or looks after children or who cooks either. It's just an empty label you apply to yourself. And this word "gender" is the entire reason for this.

[Anonymous No.13220134]

> all the clueless brainlets ITT

[Anonymous No.13220135]

>>13220056
>gender is “produced” through social dynamics and the normative conditions which govern them, both of which are presupposed through the more palpable category of biological sex

These ideas rest on implicit assumptions about the blank slate. They give way too much credit to the power of human societies in a way which borders on the arrogant. We don't like the idea that we are mainly the product of biology, and not society, because it is more deterministic. If gender is a social construction then we can just change society and then everything will be better. This is why the social justice types hate talk of innate differences, because it pulls the rug from underneath them. So they try to do the same back to the natural sciences preemptively which is where the pomo radical relativist conceptions of truth come in, to try to discredit the very foundations behind ideas like innate pre determined biological realities. But the differences between the way gender is expressed cross-culturally are way smaller than the actual differences between men and women, which you can see cross culturally (if you need to). These differences are decided in the womb. Sorry to all the trannies and homos, god still loves you, but get your dirty paws out of philosophy and the sciences.

[Anonymous No.13220184]

>>13220135
You are: a) a century late; b) getting “news” from media.

At least read some fucking Foucault.

[Anonymous No.13220197]

>>13217975
Cells. Eggs or sperm. Everything else is decorations.

[Anonymous No.13220236]

There is no gender. There is only sex. Source of much confusion, I know. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.13220240]

>>13217975
To an extent yes, a large part of masculinity/femininity originate in contemporary consumer culture and marketing.

[Anonymous No.13220373]

>>13220135
When you say "differences" are determined in the womb, what kind of differences are you talking about? Butler talks about normative differences (desire, looks, sexuality) etc. that are culturally sanctioned and work only to reproduce certain type of expressions, but what kind of differences are you talking about? Got any data to back it up?

[Anonymous No.13220454]

>>13220067
One might even suggest that gender is a simulacrum

[Anonymous No.13220506]

>gender doesn't exist
Brainlet take. Like saying "judgments don't exist." Because there are sexes, individuals come to judge what is felt to be "natural" behavioral patterns and traits for each sex and what lifestyles are "best" for accentuating the qualities of each sex, forming "genders" that become an inseparable part of the sexes' identities for the judge. Modernists like to think they are above this process, but they aren't.

[Anonymous No.13220515]

>>13220506
you do realize performative constitution of gender is not the same as saying gender doesn't exist? even butler does not say that female/male genders are something we should abolish or fight against

[Anonymous No.13220523]

>>13220515
>you do realize performative constitution of gender is not the same as saying gender doesn't exist?
There's several posters itt who stated outright that it doesn't exist. I was commenting on those posts, not Butler.

[Anonymous No.13220530]

>>13220523
oh, okay, my bad

[Anonymous No.13220552]

Accept that your gender is performative or I'm going to perform the shit out of you.
https://youtu.be/YgQy70_LPS4

[Anonymous No.13220553]

>>13220373
Exposure to different levels of hormones in the womb encodes sex differences into the structure of the foetal body and brain. This is the source of differences in things like desire, looks, and sexuality, which dictate social norms and are reflected back by social norms but do not have their origin in the social norms. Butler-fags have it all backwards, and notice how nobody from the actual hard sciences takes any of that bullshit seriously. Reference to social forces in determining truth is all well and good but that way of thinking can so easily go way too far very rapidly and I hope the humanities learn that lesson soon if they want to be taken seriously again.

[Anonymous No.13220559]

>>13220506
You're not being polite to the pronouns.

[Anonymous No.13220572]

Who's the worst of the neotranscendental solipsists?
Land
Deleuze
Butler
Who else?

[Anonymous No.13220584]

>>13220553
can you link to any studies that show how girls calling their boyfriends daddy is an biological determination? or liking pink color is feminine, liking blue is masculine etc.

[Anonymous No.13220592]

It's time to ma'amhandle the eschaton.
https://youtu.be/Lb6OpRfyLFo
https://youtu.be/iFxCpWWs3lw

[Anonymous No.13220614]

>>13217975
What's this performativenesslessness called?

[Anonymous No.13220652]

>>13220584
I don't know about those things specifically. You can always Google it yourself if you aren't just being snooty and rhetorical. It's been shown that monkeys will divide gendered toys in the same way that human children will. Here is a link to one of those studies, but it has been replicated many times since
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

[Anonymous No.13220680]

>>13220552
>>13220592
>cherrypicking
Why don't you post some videos of transwomen being perfectly normal well adjusted members of society to balance this out?

[Anonymous No.13220682]

>>13220680
Lack of material

[Anonymous No.13220712]

>>13220680
lmao why don't you?

[Anonymous No.13220749]

>>13220652
interesting study. But I still think bio-scientists and so called "social constructionists" talks about different kind of things. When Butler talks about gender, she has in mind this normative dimension of "you should do/act like this and only this, or else you're social outcast", whereas scientists, that look for biological determinations, usually talk about certain mechanisms that determine our preferences to certain things. There is a difference between saying "biological males are naturally more disposed towards liking car-toys than girls" and "boys should play with cars, don't let them touch any dolls, because it is in their nature". In the second moment, you make an injunction out of an empirical observation.

[Anonymous No.13220756]

>>13220680
can't tell if this is a joke or not

[Anonymous No.13220774]

>>13218183
I have a theory gender reveal parties are a trend seeded by conservative think tanks as a response to the gender debate.

My proof: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=gender%20reveal
gender reveal parties appear to not have existed before the start of this decade.

Not American tho so maybe there's something obvious I'm missing.

[Anonymous No.13220815]

>>13220749
I don't believe anybody is making this injunction out of the empirical observation. I think that that is what it might look like however to those who already believe that gender is primarily a social construction. That there must be some active enforcement of gender roles to explain all the measurable variation.
Actually it has been noted in recent years that the more free a society is when it comes to gender roles, the greater the measurable differences in personality temperament. Objective differences push up through the cracks in the cultural layering.

[Anonymous No.13220820]

>>13220680
Do those exist

[Anonymous No.13220839]

>>13220815
>I don't believe anybody is making this injunction out of the empirical observation.

nowadays maybe not so much, but in the older days (e.g. my parents generation) was filled with this "boys should x and only x, and girls should y and only y"). Homosexuality and other non-comforming expressions were pathologized untill pretty recently too, which is a social regulation. You are probably talking from a comfortable position, from which you did not experience any of these "social norms" I'm talking about, for you they are non-existent then.

>Actually it has been noted in recent years that the more free a society is when it comes to gender roles, the greater the measurable differences in personality temperament
yes of course, no one is denying that there are biological differences in women/men. also I've read a study recently, which showed that the more financially stable women become, the more they choose older men as potential partners (contrary to egalitarian opinion that "women will also like younger partners, but societal brakes don't let them).

[Anonymous No.13220959]

>>13220839
My point was that it doesn't matter whether or not society is strict in its enforcement of gender roles, the underlying biology will always account for almost all of the individual's gender expression, and in fact greater psychological dimorphism is seen when cultural rules are enforced LESS. The desire to be concerned with things rather than with people, and so with toys with moving parts rather than dolls, is correlated with your level of testosterone not with your parents' attitude to gender roles. Social constructivism is a red herring and as I said several post ago, should have been thrown out of academia onto a pile of phlogiston and mesmerism.

[Anonymous No.13221020]

>>13219799
>how does initial research being done unprofessionaly and unethically warrant throwing out an entire line of research?
It is tainted to the core. If someone wanted to engage in serious study with rigorous controls then they should be starting elsewhere. I would draw a distinction between his "line" of work and the entire "field".
>does not disprove the entire field of psychology and psychoanalysis
This is the ultimate strawman attack. I never stated "psychology". Miss me with your reductive reasoning bullshit. You are unironically using the same reductive reasoning that Freud, Money, and Hirschfeld use in their work. You might consider this fact for a bit. Their influence on you may have seeded this characteristic in your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.13221024]

>>13219945
Sauce?

[Anonymous No.13221031]

>>13217994
Based

[Anonymous No.13221091]

>>13220135
It still seems like you’re not really understanding the distinction being made. The idea that gender is performative does not discredit the fact that biological reality exists, what it does do is show how most claims about gender roles, behaviours, aesthetics, etc. constitute parts of ideological reproduction. The minute you start mapping out performative expressions of gender onto sex chromosomes, you’re no longer talking about sex from an objective/scientific standpoint because the neutrality of the description has already been contaminated with a prescriptive conception of why gender should reproduce its biological equivalent, and not do something else instead that might serve everyone better. There’s an argument to be made that gender differences do result from sex differences but the argument that “gender is immutable because biology is immutable” isn’t sound at all.

[Anonymous No.13221227]

>>13220067
>People only ever said "gender" because sex became a rude word
I am an oldfag and I watched this happen in the 70s. I was taught to use the term "gender" synonymously with "sex" for this very reason. I have always wondered if that mechanism of replacement was used specifically for getting the term introduced into the common vernacular for later use in a more expanded sense.

[Anonymous No.13221240]

>>13221091
No I do understand this distinction, thank you for describing it so neatly. Biological categories are innate but prepared in advance of experience to react to particular stimuli. Just like for language learning or prioritising certain visual inputs over others. Gender expression is a performance to an extent but I don't think this has any explanatory power nor is it revelatory. All too often this kind of approach to gender is used to justify the belief that such identities are arbitrary and subjective and changeable, and that this negates any essentialism. Your reading of these pomo thinkers is the generous one, I would rather nip them in the bud. Performativity is an interesting observation but the explanatory power lies with biology and evo psych not with the cultural determinists.
I recommend everyone watch pic related if you get a chance. This guy goes around the world and lives with a different tribe each episode for several months, and they are living essentially prehistorical lives, mostly hunter gatherers. They ALL have stratified gender roles, division of labour, and so on, the stereotypical 'masculine' and 'feminine' behaviours are mostly but not entirely identical to what we have in the modern west. Biological categories uber alles. Calling it a 'performance' just doesn't do the reality of gender any justice.

[Anonymous No.13221249]

>>13220774
I had never heard of it at all until the last few years. I assumed it was a recent consumerist tack-on social media trend for vapid women like washed-up sorority sluts do with their unique name reveals, but it would make some sense if it was a consumerist tack-on social media trend for vapid women being pushed with ulterior motives.
I've still never met somebody who actually had one, but I'm only 22.

[Anonymous No.13221305]

>>13221240
>Gender expression is a performance to an extent
A performative is not the same thing as a performance, I cannot stress this point enough. Before we go any further I'd recommend reading How To Do Things With Words by JL Austin, its a fantastic primer on performative language and speech act theory, and will really help to illuminate what Butler is trying to do with gender.

As for that doc, I have seen it before and it is fascinating, but the fact that stratified gender roles exist everywhere doesn't make them necessarily dependent on biological constraints, just that those constraints can be used to justify and reinforce dominant cultural attitudes to gender. The biological imperative might push us towards certain ways of organising gender relations, but there's no legitimate argument to suggest that the imperative to centre human society on sexual reproduction/the gender binary is 'ethical' (as the anti-natalists have demonstrated); its simply the evolutionary prerogative which has kept us alive all these years, a hangup from our pre-cognisant beginnings that is becoming increasingly irrelevant as we learn to adapt, co-operate and supplement our shortcomings with technology.

[Anonymous No.13221313]

>>13217989
fpbp

[Anonymous No.13221323]

>>13218431
missing the point this badly is only possible with sincere effort

[Anonymous No.13221345]

>>13218149
>society emerges out of nature through the evolution of higher intelligence and social complexity
>men and women with their biological differences and general behavioral proclivities naturally gravitate towards different behavior expressions
>21st century
>lol we just act different cuz society tells us to xD
Just as foolish as YouTube Atheists tearing apart Christian fundamentalists for the gratification of intellectual reassurance.

[Anonymous No.13221365]

>>13220680
kek

[Anonymous No.13221375]

David Foster Wallace once wrote a piece about David Lynch. In the piece, he coined a new term: "Lynchian". Wallace described a Lynchian tone as "the unbelievably grotesque existing in a kind of union with the unbelievably banal."

He described a husband beating his 1950s housewife to death because she bought the wrong brand of peanut butter. "I told you to buy the JIF," he'd say as he's clobbering her to death. This, he said, would qualify as almost perfectly Lynchian.

I think "I Am Jazz" enters into Lynchian territory. The .webm above shows a simple domestic scene. The women look like average suburban moms. They're relaxing on the couch. One imagines they might be discussing casserole recipes when we cut to them. But it slowly dawns on us that in the living room, with placid expressions on their faces, they're talking about the woman's transvestite son's genitals.

Despite the obvious subtext and the producers' hope to normalize this horror, the average person is totally disgusted. Nevertheless, the viewer is fascinated. We're drawn further into this. The sheer naked horror of what they're saying, the blasé quality with which they're saying it, it creates this brutal paradox that almost rapes the viewer's basic sense of what is decent.

[Anonymous No.13221544]

>>13221249
>>13220774

Idk I think it's genuine. My older sister is a lesbian in her mid 30s and she's a really socially active, extroverted SJW type and her and all her friends have been having kid(s) for the last few years.

For whatever reason, they all have a "gender reveal" (although per their own vocabulary, it should be a "sex reveal"), and they seem to put a lot of effort into brainstorming and discussing what sort of obscure quirky names they're going to come up with like Alacyn, Jaeydin, Teagan and other low-brow working class sounding bullshit. It's also super cool if your kid has some sort of behavioral or nutritional disorder like gluten intolerance, aspergers, shell fish allergies, or child onset gender dysphoria.

Strange world, it is.

[Anonymous No.13221556]

>>13218256
nah, not drunk, it's the right answer to a different question.

[Anonymous No.13221558]

>>13221544
My nephew went through a phase of wanting to wear skirts when he was about 4, and his mom was obviously pleased to bits, because now she could say her boy was kinda trans and wasn't she progressive. She was even disappointed when a few weeks later he stopped and started playing with trucks again

[Anonymous No.13221713]

>>13218443
>using uncommon words improves the strength of my vapid argument
nice try lol

[Anonymous No.13221781]

>>13221713
>can't engage with the content of a post
>have to resort to bitching about big boy words
ESL shitskin, please go.

[Anonymous No.13221958]

Androgynous faced, low digit ratio, wide shouldered, flat chested, flat assed, lesbian here- gender has no physical basis and is purely performative.

[Anonymous No.13222001]

>>13217975
>Are these buzzwords buzzwords?

Yes

[Anonymous No.13222082]

>>13217975
gender and sex doesn't exist, just like every framework. Frameworks are made from interpreting reality, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.13222121]

>>13217989
kek

[Anonymous No.13222228]

>>13217975
How could you think gender ISN'T performative? It's entirely built on self-expression and identification, and the categorization and definition of it is a wholly social phenomena.

This isn't even something explicitly leftist or queer-aligned to claim, anyone with a brain knows this. It's only when you get into questions of what gender should be, how it should be expressed, etc. that it must be treated as an ideological matter.