Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team
A new book by Judith Butler, “Who is Afraid of Gender?” has recently been released. (abbreviated below as WIAOG). Butler is a strong proponent of co-essentialism: people freely determine their own gender, where gender would then be a fact rather than a choice.
In WIAOG, Butler discusses the notion of gender ideology as a brainchild of the Vatican and sees the forces fighting gender ideology as an expression of anti-gender ideology. This anti-gender ideology is portrayed as a creation and incarnation of fantasy in the style of the psychoanalyst Jean Laplanche. Anti-gender ideology clusters the forces against gender, and the book is a systematic attempt to discredit all forms of anti-gender ideology.
The move to characterize the opposition to gender ideology initiated from the Vatican as an expression of anti-gender ideology is understandable and is indeed justified. The problem is in the setting of the brackets: it talks about anti(gender ideology) but Butler talks about (anti-gender) ideology, which is something else. And it is completely unclear why people who want to fight gender ideology would be more antagonistic.
Be that as it may, the mindset of “antigender” is unhesitatingly described by Butler as a conglomerate of: anti-abortion, against anti-conception, heteronormative, seeing the family as the familiar cornerstone of society, role-affirming for “classic” roles of man and woman, essentialist regarding the definition of man and woman, dismissive of neutral gender.
The problematic and indefensible role of the Vatican, and of the previous and current pope in particular, is clearly and convincingly described. The multitude of coalitions with Protestant Christian groups and also the Russian Orthodox Church is described, and that anti(gender ideology) combines a multitude of forces is certainly made plausible. Indeed, as far as the Vatican is concerned, it is incomprehensible how a denomination within which sexual abuse of minors has occurred on a large scale worldwide and for a very long time can and will afford such firm and freedom-restricting views. Butler points out the indeed irrefutable inconsistency common among adherents of anti(gender ideology). Butler claims that these very internal struggles contribute to the power of the message, and that is compelling.
An important point Butler keeps making is that activists for anti(gender ideology) do not read the literature on gender and actually know or want to know anything about it. While this observation is persuasive, it is unfortunate then that Butler himself takes exactly the same approach. The hard core of the book is not so much the exposition of the multiplicity of forces in anti(gender ideology) as the specific confrontation with TERF ideology (see our blog AGTRT-BF43), with Kathleen Stock and J.K. Rowling in particular being put forward as representatives of the TERF view. We disagree with the TERF ideology, but the arguments from that angle should be taken seriously, and Butler does not. It is incorrect to portray J.K. Rowling as transexclusive (see AGTRT-BF12), even though she has been moving in that direction recently (see AGTRT-BF60). It is also nonsensical to refute TERF arguments by pointing out that doing so damages the necessary unity of feminists. That does not diminish those arguments.
Read more about how Rowling has been unfairly dismissed as transphobic:
Transactivism preaches inclusion to mask a systematic practice of exclusion
Read more about Rowling’s recent hardening:
The battle between Rowling and Willoughby in 12 points
There is a considerable literature on the concepts of gender, gender identity, gender transition, sex, biological sex, etc. These concepts and the relationships between them do not speak for themselves. We list as authors Elizabeth Barnes, Alex Byrne, Robin Tombroff, Tomas Bogardus, Sally Haslanger, Katharine Jenkins, Mari Mikkola, Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini, and Talia Mae Bettcher. The work of these researchers was the starting point for our work on Formal Gender Theory (FGT). We certainly do not agree with all these authors regarding gender, but we do see that they make an attempt to clarify the issue of gender, that regardless of the fact that they reach different conclusions.
None of these authors is mentioned by Butler, and that is no coincidence. It seems that Butler takes a stand against anyone who dares to have or express their own opinion on the concept of gender. Butler also makes no mention of the severe curtailment of freedom of expression regarding the conceptualization of gender that is now pervasive in academia: those who do not embrace gender ideology as understood by Butler are outlaws. It is insufficient for Butler to speak out against the way J.K. Rowling is being targeted on social media. Butler falls utterly short of recognizing (and obfuscating) the formidable lack of academic freedom that, at least in Northwest Europe and North America, is now visible. As if those forces were legitimate anyway in view of the larger interests at stake here.
The omission of any discussion of gender theory as edited by the row of authors mentioned above is problematic. It is a form of aggressive academic illiteracy such as we have encountered in social sciences at the UvA. You simply deny the existence of authors you disagree with, or stronger, you act as if their nonexistence and irrelevance were self-evident, and any acknowledgement of their participation in the debate would be foolish and culpable. Judith Butler is “afraid of gender” in the sense that no one is thankful to have or express their own opinion on that concept. Similarly, those in power in dictatorships are “afraid of truth”: the simplest truths are not allowed to be discussed. Here is such a truth that the unity of modern conceptions of “gender” that Butler takes for granted but presupposes in academic literature absolutely does not exist, quite the contrary!
Read more about the lack of debate in social sciences at UvA:
What lessons can the Netherlands learn from the Phoenix case? A comparison between Jo Phoenix and Laurens Buijs
But the discussion of anti(gender ideology) also provides a portrait of Butler’s own gender ideology, below BGI. And BGI does not lie. BGI is averse to any nuance and is utterly co-essentialist. BGI ridicules (and this is putting it very kindly) anyone who even questions the meaning of the concepts used. It takes little or one ends up in the receptacle of erroneous views where racism, facism and colonialism can also be found.
We assume that gender theory will eventually prove strong enough to withstand the destructive power of BGT. No, it does not go without saying that assuming that gender has three options, male, female and neutral, that then solely and exclusively one’s own explanation for this categorization is sufficient, even if BGT sees that issue as a passed station on which debate would be obsolete (and thus objectionable). It is not at all obvious that anyone who questions this can or should also, and if only suggestively, be accused of problematic backward positions on abortion, sexual orientation, marital morality, emancipation, feminism, racism, and binary thinking on gender.
It is indeed possible to not completely agree with BGT on all fronts and still have a defensible social vision. BGT legitimizes a philosophical totalitarianism with the mindset of “whoever is not for me is against me.” Ultimately, we expect that “Who is Afraid of Gender” will contribute to the dismantling of BGT, and that this book and the BGT behind it will not be able to prevent the emergence of a more careful (and ideologically inclusive) form of gender theory.