“ 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.

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.

>Sex is a classification because it is part of material, empirical reality

There is no such thing as a classification outside of the abilities of a sense-making being. It doesn't mean that, if humans don't exist then there are no such things as, say, apples. What it means is that a classification is explicitly the work of sense-making beings (e.g. humans).

>That's like saying that because some people have a birth defect that gives them six fingers on each hand, that humans as a species don't have five fingers on each hand.

No, the appropriate analogy would be to question "birth defects". What makes a person with six fingers "defective"? Establishing a norm requires looking at variation and deciding what the norm is for. If the norm just means "statistical average", then that's fine, but it doesn't mean that a person with six fingers doesn't have a hand, it just means that it's a hand differently composed than the statistical average. Intersex classification is differently composed from the statistical average of male/female and so cannot be subsumed as either one.

>One, that makes no sense. Sex is a classification because it is part of material, empirical reality.

You are fighting a losing war here. Bulter is a post modernist, they don't just disagree with your conclusions, they disagree with the entirety of how you got there. To a post modernist the statement,

" it is part of material, empirical reality."

Is already were they are disagreeing with you. Material, empirical reality either does not exist or is impossible to discover according to them.

>What gives Judith butler the authority to claim the entire human species is performing their gender?

Butler talks about a specific cultural phenomenon of gender as it's established on performative acts, not on performance. The two terms are different. Also, it's clear that you're trying to fault Butler with the charge of being presumptuous, but that's not an objection to the content of their argument, so I'll leave it there.

>She also claims biological sex is not "real," and by real, I mean that she is implying that humanity is separate from mammals, which is bizarre

Butler doesn't do this. The argument about biological sex is that it's a social classification (a group of scientists deciding on a definition is social classification), but that doesn't mean there's no reality behind it.

>Her writing style is filled with prose, postmodernism jargon and undefined terms.

Butler explains the terms they use for their own arguments, but not the ones they borrow from other authors/discourses. Also, postmodernism isn't really a thing in philosophy, so there's no "postmodernism jargon".

>Her response was to ignore this question and go on to talk poetically about the social construct of biological sex. All claims have a source if you want them.

I already know about such claims. Butler has emphasized many times that pregnancy isn't a defining characteristic of a woman, since there are women who can't give birth (which obviously extends to females, if we want to frame it that way), so responding with a point about the social construction of sex is actually an appropriate and consistent response.

> Isn't biological sex based on biology

Butler takes the post modernist stance that "biology" as a group of rules and ideas is inherently made up and therefore meaningless.

They do not believe that because we observed reality and constructed these rules and ideas from these observations, that it means there is any validity to these rules.

The central tenant of post modernism is that the human subjective makes any sort of objectivism impossible (some even go further and claim that objectiveness is impossible itself)

Of course, this is why these kinds of ideas are limited to philosophy and other related fields - scientific theory is predicated on the idea that objectiveness does exist and is achievable to some degree.

This is true in the sense that science, or even more broadly the process of categorizing things, is done in a social context. Meaning that no one individual decides what any one thing is on the whole, rather it's done collectively.

However, I'm confused as to the point of this point. Technically, we collectively classified and decided that we are all existing on a giant rock with certain properties, and we called it earth. You can do this for literally anything because of how humans communicate, and because of how knowledge is generated.

But in what sense does it mean that it is a social classification? Isn't it much more accurate to say that things like Earth, or sex, exist independent of social classification, and that the terms themselves are things that are social constructions so that we can talk about and refer to something that exists out there in material reality?

I had this discussion with my evolution professor in school, who suggested to me that where we draw lines between species is a social construction. And my response was basically "well yeah. Humans categorize things in order to understand them. But it's not completely arbitrary, it's based on observations of reality that are independent of human thought. There is a difference between a lion and a tiger, regardless of what we call them or where we decide to draw the line, right?"

Edit: missed a word

Edit 2: I see that you responded to the other commenter while I was typing my questions out, so I want to be more specific here because this is always where I get stuck when going through this discussion. You made the same point in another comment thread above and seem very familiar with the topic, so I'd love to hear more from you. I majored in biology and minored in philosophy, so I am constantly torn on these types of points.

It seems we agree that there is an independent reality outside of human observation, and that the categorization or classification as such is the part that is a social classification (construction I think is also commonly used.)

Is this only to point out the fact that boundaries drawn and characteristics chosen in these distinctions are human-created (aka socially constructed?) Because this seems fairly self-evident, but I don't know what work it does. If an independent reality exists, and human understanding is dependent on categorization, and we do have some level of access to that independent reality, then aren't we progressively attempting to describe something that we are not creating, just observing? That is, we are continuously updating our understanding of an independent reality which has characteristics, can be known to us, and requires labeling in order for us to communicate about it?

Please feel free to DM me if you'd rather continue there, but I had this conversation A LOT during my undergrad and never got satisfying answers for it. Thanks ahead of time.

>Butler is saying that there’s no point in making a distinction between the two because ultimately, gender only exists because of sex.

That's where I'm confused, isn't the quote from the article is the other way round. In that sex comes from the the "social meanings"/gender?

Also isn't that the right's position, in that gender comes from sex or that they are highly linked.

[removed]

What mischaracterization? What gives Judith butler the authority to claim the entire human species is performing their gender? She also claims biological sex is not "real," and by real, I mean that she is implying that humanity is separate from mammals, which is bizarre. Her writing style is filled with prose, postmodernism jargon and undefined terms. She claims this is a form of resistance. OK fine. Lastly going back to my first point of biological sex, she was asked in an interview why she ignores pregnancy. Being that the reality of every human being in the world came from the womb of a woman with the correct gametes, xx chromosomes and the much needed organs to bring a child to term. Which men do not possess. Her response was to ignore this question and go on to talk poetically about the social construct of biological sex. All claims have a source if you want them.

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.

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!

One, that makes no sense. Sex is a classification because it is part of material, empirical reality.

Two, intersex is NOT an example of more than two sexes. I am literally studying biology in university. That's like saying that because some people have a birth defect that gives them six fingers on each hand, that humans as a species don't have five fingers on each hand.

>Saying that "it makes no sense to talk about biological sex existing outside of its social meaning" is scientific denialism and total bullshit

Nope. Sex is a social classification. It doesn't mean that the things we use to make the classification don't exist, just that the way they become established as part of a classification is a social effort.

>Every mammal has two sexes with different behaviors in each sex that evolved over time for the purpose of efficient reproduction.

Even basic biology admits of more than 2 sexes. Intersex classification has been talked to death. Claiming that there are only two sexes: A) misses the point of this discussion, and B) is itself science denial.

Yes.

Show me how your consciousness is fundamentally different than that of a cow.

We're probably smarter than most cows, but then again you and I are probably smarter than most people. That's not really a road anyone wants to go down.

You still owe me What drugs makes someone "awake and unconscious"?

C'mon man, I said consciousness is being awake. The obvious rebuttal is explaining how they're two different things. If you're just going to skip over the hard questions, you've already left the conversation even if you're still here.

people need to read some biology textbooks. two sexes. behaviors are influenced by sexual dimorphism and natural selection over time. "gender" is a weird semantic construct that is rooted in dimorphic sex characteristics. Saying that "it makes no sense to talk about biological sex existing outside of its social meaning" is scientific denialism and total bullshit. We are mammals. Every mammal has two sexes with different behaviors in each sex that evolved over time for the purpose of efficient reproduction. This is partly where gender stereotypes emerge, some of them are rooted somewhat in reality. E.g., females are more associated with caregiving because evolutionarily, it is costlier to produce eggs and females must be invested in raising their offspring for it to be worthwhile. I say this as a woman. It's the reality of how our species has evolved. Doesn't mean that women have to fullfill this role, just it makes sense that it's associated with us. it's not that deep lol

[removed]

“Butler reminds us that vulnerability is not all bad; it is what makes life possible. All bodies must be in some way open to the world and to others. They must be able to take in and give out: to eat, breathe, speak, be intimate. A body unable to do this could not be alive. Ultimately, Butler reminds us, often poetically, that to be fully ourselves, we need each other.”

This is Butler’s most important point. We are human beings dependent on each other for our very existence. Levinas and other existentialists make the same point, some maintaining that being in the sense of self-consciousness began with the encounter with the other. Given that we are an infinite mystery to each other, and to ourselves, the process of “being” never ends. All of our social constructs begin from there. Arguably even our sense of time and space is such a current social construct. One might even say that it is the ability to overcome our biology and choose new ways of being that makes us human.

The issue is that the establishment of the concept of biological sex is not divorced from social meanings, so that any physical trait as signifying a sex characteristic is socially established (what counts as a sex characteristic? Why? Who decides, and on what basis?)

Some people take this to mean that Butler thinks that hormones and such aren't real or have no effect on bodies, but all it means is that sex is a social classification and so established as meaningful socially

She literally doesn't say any of that.

If you're going to make a claim of her, cite it.

Otherwise you're being really manipulative.

Lol, you're circling around your own semantics.

Sorry, you're just wrong, no matter how often you repeat yourself. No matter how many buzzwords you throw in there.

Considering progressives seek to eliminate existing power structures, your comment fundamentally makes no sense

[removed]

Lol, groundbreaking feminist studies are published everyday, you kinda showed your cards with that statement.

It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you just have some weird issue with women.

Judith Butler represents one iteration of feminist theory. Grind your axe somewhere else.

I’m not sure you understand biology.