Hoy me encontre con un comentario que me pareció interesante, para entenderlo hay que estar familiarizado con las teorías feministas de Judith Butler. Lo malo es que esta en ingles:
Nameless Poster escribió:
The word ‘dogma’ is defined by Webster as follows:
*a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
*a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
We are now starting to understand better why culture at large and gays in particular impose a « born this way »-dogma.
It is because without such dogmatism, the entire narrative soon comes crumbling down…
Since we live in an owned world, even the social sciences uphold this illusion, of innate homosexuality, be it subtly, and rarely explicitly.
It really takes concentration, to understand just how devious and deceptive queer academia really are.
Through heaps of jargon, incredibly vague conceptualizations, much rhetoric, and no sound reasoning at all, queer academia actually PRETEND to be interested in how gayness and queerness are ‘socially constructed’, while at the same time leaving gays and queers with the illusion that they are really being ‘their true selves’, that they constructed themselves in line with their innate characteristics.
Queers have become who they really are against all the odds of the social pressures… The people they were meant to be, meant to be from birth of course.
Queers are being themselves, whereas straights are programmed by social forces.
In this way, a suggestion of innateness is transmitted, but merely a suggestion, never an honest straightforward claim, of queers really actually being ‘born that way’.
The idea people are left with is:
WHY ELSE would ‘queers’ go against the social pressures, when straights don’t, if not because that’s what they always were really like, inside?
Butler’s fawning at queerness comes with the latent, disguised suggestion that queers are being their true selves, and thus, that they were ‘born that way’.
REGARDLESS of what it is Butler is ACTUALLY saying, her fans, all lesbians of course, are firmly convinced Nature indeed made them that way.
In reality Butler’s lesbian fans usually don’t understand the work; the only thing they do appear to get is that Butler is a lesbian and an academic star, and therefore a rolemodel.
I realize all of this sounds confusing and irksome, and tends to give anyone a headache, but that’s not my fault.
It simply is what queer academics are doing: PRETENDING to produce a body of insights, while really tiptoeing around the entire nature-versus-nurture issue, and ultimately leaving gays and ‘queers’ with the strong impression that they are expressing their INNATE ‘gender’.
As we’ve seen in the third section, Butler argues that a heterosexual is ‘socially constructed’ by social forces:
a male feels masculine because he received the Ken doll, didn’t wear a dress, and was encouraged to climb trees and be assertive.
At the same time, it is argued that queers « perform » their sexual identities through acts, and that this is all about making yourself as you really are. Butler considers this quite a glorious endeavour, a true resistance to the tyranny of social gender-conditioning..
Why on earth would it be glorious, UNLESS queers are expressing their true, innate identities?
Surely there’s nothing about it that can be considered ‘glorious’ if ‘queers’ are just doing ‘whatever’?
Also, Butler doesn’t appear to be surprised at all that transsexuals get the desired surgery only when declaring they were ‘born in a wrong body’.
She never states, as she should when logically applying her own ideology, that a tranny in fact CAN’T be born in a wrong body, because the ‘gender identity’ is only constructed socially (and performed through one’s acts), and is unrelated to biology.
Thus it becomes obvious that this is not just a case of bad thinking and incoherence: Butler’s intent is actually deceptive.
As a mediatized, owned puppet, who is basically the front-guard of academia’s discussion of homosexuals, she must promote queerness and sexual deviance and a loss of the reference of biological sex, and in order to do so, she needs a fan-base.
Therefore, she offers ‘queers’ a semblance of an ideology and a very distorted body of ‘insights’ that impresses many, while really leaving them none the wiser.
Her strategy is to avoid stating straight out that ‘queers’ were born that way, because she knows she can’t back that claim up.
Yet at the same time, NOR IS SHE ACTUALLY DENYING THIS EITHER:
she never tells ‘queers’ that they were NOT born that way either, because such a blatant confession would make her lose all her fans.
It’s much too useful from the system’s perspective to have queers BELIEVE they were indeed ‘born that way’.
Thus Butler is perpetually engaged in an amazing juggling act, using and MUCH needing incredibly obtuse jargon, wherefore she has become something of a laughing stock to ACTUAL intellectuals. Things is, ain’t many of those around…
In reality, she must constantly deviate attention from the fact that people who are ‘born that way’ can of course ALSO ‘socially construct themselves that way’, and that the one in reality doesn’t exclude the other at all.
After all, a male lion cub is BORN lion AND, through nurture and his activities, ultimately ALSO BECOMES an adult male lion.
The male lion cub BECOMES an adult male lion, because of time, and his successful (‘performative’) acts that sustained his life. Acts that NECESSARILY were the substance of his road to adulthood: he played, slept, hunted, mated and ‘performed’ all those acts.
He BECOMES an adult lion and ‘amazingly’, was ALSO BORN a lion.
Likewise, constructing yourself as ‘queer’, through ‘performative acts’ in reality doesn’t prevent the possibility that the ‘queer’ was also BORN with the predisposition to perform such acts, and meant from birth to BECOME ‘queer':
the one in fact doesn’t exclude the other.
While Butler knows very well queers weren’t ‘born queer’, and indeed never tells them they were ‘born queer’, she leaves them with that impression anyway.
Butler’s focus on ‘performativity’ is in reality designed to obfuscate the fact that the issue of innateness, the question of nature-versus-nurture hasn’t been addressed at all:
you can ‘perform’ yourself into a gay man while ALSO having been born gay. In fact, how can you even become gay without having engaged in gay acts?
And so the queer prophetess ultimately leaves the entire crux of the issue to the geneticists, thereby equally implicitly suggesting that the ‘gender identity’ actually is innate, and that gays are ‘born that way’, without ever having to openly state it.
She prefers leaving gays with THE SUGGESTION, that way she can never be caught wrong.
Sadly, she keeps promoting this concept of ‘gender’ invented by a child-molester, John Money, and Robert Stoller, the pervert interested in child sexuality, even though this concept has shown to be fraudulent, based on a criminal hoax, and is superfluous.
Butler’s work is in reality quite stunning, more so considering the massive fame it earned her. Now what has she really done?
Well, through coupling the concepts of ‘gender’ and ‘performativity’, she has managed the amazing feat of:
*avoiding having to claim ‘queers’ are born that way.
*avoiding having to claim ‘queers’ are NOT born that way
*avoiding having to even explain why a ‘queer’ is ‘queer’
*while presenting ‘queerness’ as a glorious identity, and therefore promoting deviance and weirdness, and in reality putting gays and lesbians on a par with pedophiles..
*and ceaselessly promoting ‘gender’ and doing away with the relevance of biological sex.
Can you believe it?
We now find that the queer emperess is in fact stark naked.
The question that rises is:
if only social forces are responsible for creating a sense of masculinity or femininity in society’s members, meaning if only social forces create ‘gender identities’, then why is Judith Butler attacking the forces that make people feel masculine or feminine in accord with their biology, and does NOT attack the forces that make people feel different from what their anatomy suggests?
If social forces give rise to straightness, then what social forces give rise to queerness? Why hasn’t Butler even made a beginning identifying these forces? Obviously because the INNUENDO is that ‘queerness’ is innate.
What Butler really does is promoting an ideology; it is the ideology that QUEER IS GOOD and STRAIGHT IS BAD, and SUGGESTS that queer is innate, and that straight is a result of social pressures.
She has provided no foundation whatsoever for what is ultimately a bizarre, creepy moral stance clothed in a schizophrenic body of academic babble.
It is because these deranged, sold, owned thinkers and academics have unavowed allegiances and priorities, it is because they have been versed into certain ideologies, PROGRAMMED, that they are not in a position to deliver the kind of insights that society needs:
what makes people gay?
It’s important to be aware of this evil, this control that affects the social pyramid and culture, because such an awareness opens the mind, and allows to see what is in fact lying in full view, and what is really quite evident:
that gays are of course NOT « born that way ». I can say it, and substantiate it. Why can’t Butler?