the-willow-witch
the-willow-witch t1_j7vk8wf wrote
Reply to comment by InTheEndEntropyWins in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692
“ For Butler, it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy.”
We literally can not exist outside of gender and sex because of the way society forces it on us. From a young age we are dressed and treated a certain way based on our genitals. To say that sex and gender aren’t linked is to ignore this fact. They’re not saying sex and gender are the same thing but that they belong in the same conversation. Because our sex affects our gender whether they’re the same or not. Because our experiences form our perspectives in our society.
It’s like how race is made up and a social construct, but that doesn’t mean that race doesn’t affect our lives and perspectives.
I hope I’m making sense.
the-willow-witch t1_j7vj8us wrote
Reply to comment by InTheEndEntropyWins in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692
I mean, they are linked. I think the right’s position is that they’re the same. That there are two sexes so there are two genders.
the-willow-witch t1_j7vcala wrote
Reply to comment by Chance-Conclusion-43 in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692
I think that’s what they’re saying. That there’s no point in talking about sex vs gender because they’re intrinsically linked enough due to the fact that our concepts of gender evolved from the roles we place on people throughout history due to their sex.
the-willow-witch t1_j7vc079 wrote
Reply to comment by InTheEndEntropyWins in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692
Our concepts of gender have evolved over the years due to the roles that people who were able to have children had vs those of the people who can’t have children. Our ideas of what makes a woman is steeped in the history of what has been forced on birth givers, our ideas of what makes a man is steeped in the history of what has been forced on people with penises. They are intrinsically linked but many theories on gender state that just because they’re linked doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Butler is saying that there’s no point in making a distinction between the two because ultimately, gender only exists because of sex. They obviously don’t think sex and gender are the same thing, because they are nonbinary. But in discussions of sex vs gender the idea is that they’re linked enough that we don’t need to make any distinctions.
At least that’s what I made of it. As always, I could be completely wrong and if I am, hopefully someone will set us both right!
the-willow-witch t1_j6g1twx wrote
I liked it. Read it like 15 years ago though, and I was a pretentious 15 year old.
the-willow-witch t1_j1n4w1r wrote
Omg yes!!! I used to love reading really dark books. Like palahniuk and king and horror and just twisted stuff. It’s not just that I’m in a relationship it’s that I’m a mom as well and I can’t run the risk of accidentally reading a pet Sematary again so I try to read nice stuff 😅
the-willow-witch t1_j7voqbi wrote
Reply to comment by InTheEndEntropyWins in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692
I don’t understand. What does asexuality have to do with gender? That’s a sexuality.
I think they’d observe the same ideas we have about sex in regard to humans, yes, but they wouldn’t adopt the ideals because they’re not human.
Overall I’m really confused about your comment