Someone give me a quick rundown on this woman

no, it's not uncontroversial, it's common sense. no one with any sense of social reality has ever conflated linguistic with social gender. her performative critique adds nothing for anyone possessed of any sensitivity to gender norm variance. it forces distinction in 1% categories that didn't merit observation. And honestly still don't past academia. I'm sorry if 1-3% of the population feel excluded by sex/gender discourse but the other 97-99% do not need to pander to you.

>Someone give me a quick rundown on this woman
Proverbs 30:27

can you even read?

>what it means to be a woman is to commonly act in a way that people would call womanly

She writes terribly, has no style, and is argumentatively weak. Martha Nussbaum wrote an absolutely fantastic piece criticizing her writing in general.

sunnah.com/bukhari/24/65

just read Foucault

>he doesn't gendermaxxing for trap gf
Gendercels are a fucking volcel. Gender is perfomative, so you can work it out

You are the one who does not understand. The signal from your jawline overrides the signal of your performance. Gendermaxxing with a weak lower-thrid is futile.

>women are also human
>trannys are also human
>the most radical example of post-post-modernism

She doesn't use Foucault that much, counterintuitively.

She thinks how she looks.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-against-the-gendered-nightmare

>mfw she made a career out of whining about power structures
>mfw she supported Avital Ronell when it became clear she had sexually harrassed a student, only on the grounds of her importance to feminism and her authority on the field
Are all of these people giant fucking hypocrites or just the ones that drift to the surface?

Attached: brrrrpf.jpg (398x376, 37K)

>trannies are human
not really

Look at that fucking manjaw. She has more T in her blood than most soibois, I imagine.

That’s not how Butler sees it. For her sex is just as much a discursive category of control as gender. “Biology” is a meaningless accumulation of facts, but the notion of a sexed body presupposes a limit or mould to the constitution of bodily form, just as the notion of gender demarcates the distinct outlines of masculinity and femininity. Sex is necessarily performative, the very first designation of identity arrives in the doctor’s cry of “It’s a boy/girl!”. A judgment is predicated on the idea that our discursive framing of sex corresponds to our understanding of anatomy, and not because we have a full grasp on what the sexed body could be if we refused to collapse identity into one or the other pole. Sex and gender are hopelessly entangled in our attempts to talk about them. As they are both performative they have the same effect, except they operate at different discursive magnitudes (gender is social, sex is scientific) that interpenetrate each other.

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPP

Dont know why, but every time i read something written by a feminist continental i just want to punch them in the face until they're in a coma. It's something about the jargon and the way it is written that just invites violence.

This reminds me of that anecdote about byzantine theologists arguing about how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin while the ottoman hordes are scaling the walls outside.

She's really cute.

She'll be cuter once she's dead

truth

A lot of these theorists are overwritten and very jargon heavy, which makes them more difficult to read. Paglia likes to criticise Butler by saying that all this jargon is an attempt to make baseless ideas appear more sophisticated. Personally, I don't see to much issue with Butler's basic ideas, but I agree that her writing style is awful and amateurish.

deleuze??

Love it or hate it, but there is theoretical basis for it– its part of that Derridean legacy of arche-writing, the use of complicated rhetorical distancing from the subject in order to unveil what Derrida called "the trace", or in other terms, the shadowy remainder of everything that a particular signifier is not. The only way to make that point, however, is through writing, not through speech (which both Derrida and Butler would claim has benefitted from historical privilege). Speech cannot gesture to the absent presence of the trace in the same way that writing can because the speaker cannot be disentangled from their speech, whereas an author is always already a dead relative to their written texts.

Dissembling overwrought nonsense which has created nothing of value.

well that's just, like, your opinion, man. If it's not part of your epistemic background then of course its inevitably going to come across as nonsense. It's not as if you're making the effort to engage with the ideas, is it? Why even post in a thread about Butler if you find deconstructive jargon so irritating? It's like you're going out of your way to get yourself worked up about something you already dislike.

Psuedointellectual gobbledeegoop