Judith Butler

Judith Butler and Penises

Sounding like a garden variety right-wing men’s rights activist, Judith Butler guilt-trips women who have a rational fear of male behavior.

Not all men are rapists, but 98% of sexual assaults are committed by males, and the penis is their primary weapon.

Judith Butler’s Support of Lesbian Erasure

Judith Butler argues that lesbians who insist on female-only spaces, events, or dating apps must be filled with hatred or fear. In a recent interview, she said, “What’s the wound to lesbianism if the category of women is expanded to include transwomen? How are they actually suffering? Seems to me what they are suffering from is a kind of hatred or phobia that is overwhelming to them.”

Judith Butler’s Support of Men in Women’s Prisons

Judith Butler defends the practice of housing male criminals in locked cells with women. Since 2021, California has been housing males in prisons with vulnerable women. The CA law SB 132 provides no safeguarding for women — any male, regardless of crimes committed or intact genitalia, can transfer to women’s prisons. Currently, there are at least 44 males in CA women’s prisons with hundreds pending transfer. Most of these males have fully intact genitalia. Some are even in prison for violence against women and girls. There are documented cases of rape, pregnancy, and physical abuse perpetrated by males housed in women’s prisons. Yet Judith Butler continues to defend the practice of housing women in locked in cells with males.

Judith Butler’s Support of Pedophilia

“There are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic.” — Judith Butler

The final word on queer theory and pedophilia should rightly belong to the most important and influential queer theorist living today: Judith Butler. In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be ­and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not­, it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest ­is not a violation.

She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedophile argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse, then you are oppressing and objectifying the child.

And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedophile notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful.

And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedophile queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]

[1] Butler, Judith, Undoing Gender, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 155.

[2] Butler, Judith, Undoing Gender, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 155.

[3] Butler, Judith, Undoing Gender, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 157.

[4] Butler, Judith, Undoing Gender, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 160.