Who’s Afraid of Gender? Judith Butler
WHO’S AFRAID OF GENDER?
WHO’S AFRAID OF GENDER?
JUDITH BUTLER
ALLEN LANE
an imprint of
ALLEN LANE
UK | USA | Canada | Ireland | Australia
India | New Zealand | South Africa
Penguin Books is part of the Penguin Random House group of companies whose addresses can be found at global.penguinrandomhouse.com.
First published in the United States by Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2024
First published in Great Britain by Allen Lane 2024 001
Copyright © Judith Butler, 2024
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
The authorized representative in the EEA is Penguin Random House Ireland, Morrison Chambers, 32 Nassau Street, Dublin D02 YH68
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978–0–241–59582–4
www.greenpenguin.co.uk
Penguin Random Hous e is committed to a sustainable future for our business , our readers and our planet. is book is made from Forest Stewardship Council® certified paper
for the young people who still teach me
WHO’S AFRAID OF GENDER?
Introduction
Gender Ideology and the Fear of Destruction
Why would anyone be afraid of gender? In the United States at least, the term has, until recent times, been considered relatively ordinary. We are asked to check a box on a form, and most of us do so without giving it too much thought. Of course, some of us don’t like checking the box, and think that there should be either many more boxes or perhaps none at all; we all feel differently about being called upon to check the gender box. Some suspect that “gender” is a way of discussing women’s inequality or presume that the word is synonymous with “women.” Others think it is a covert way of referring to “homosexuality.” And some presume that “gender” is another way of talking about “sex,” even though certain feminists have distinguished between the two, associating “sex” with either biology or legal assignment at birth, and “gender” with sociocultural forms of becoming. At the same time, feminists and other scholars in gender studies disagree among themselves about which definitions and distinctions are right. e myriad, continuing debates about the word show that no one approach to defi ning, or understanding, gender reigns.
e “anti– gender ideology movement,” however, treats gender as a monolith, frightening in its power and reach. To say the least, lexical debates about gender are not exactly followed by those who now oppose the term. Quite apart from the mundane and academic ways that it circulates, gender has, in some parts of the world, become a matter of extraordinary alarm. In Russia, it has been called a threat to national security, while the Vatican has said it is a threat to both civilization and to “man” itself. In conservative Evangelical and Catholic communities throughout the world, “gender” is taken as code for a political agenda that seeks not only to destroy the traditional family but also to prohibit any reference to “mother” and “father” in favor of a genderless future. On the other hand, in recent US campaigns to keep “gender” out of the classroom, “gender” is treated as code for pedophilia or a form of indoctrination that teaches young children how to masturbate or become gay. e same argument was made in Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil on the grounds that gender calls into question the natural and normative character of heterosexuality, and that once the heterosexual mandate is no longer fi rm, a flood of sexual perversities, including bestiality and pedophilia, will be unleashed upon the earth. e contradictions abound. is line of thinking—that educating children about “gender” amounts to child abuse— conveniently forgets the long-standing and hideous history of the sexual abuse of young people by priests who are subsequently exonerated and protected by the Church. e accusation of child abuse against those who teach sex education projects the harm done by the Church onto those who are trying to teach how sex works, why consent is important, and what pathways for both gender and sexuality exist. is externalization of harm is but one example of how the phantasm of gender works. In various parts of the world, gender is figured not only as a threat to children, national security, or heterosexual marriage and the normative family but also as a plot by elites to impose their cultural values on “real people,” a scheme for colonizing the Global South by the urban centers of the Global North. It is portrayed as a set of ideas that are in opposi-
tion to either science or religion, or both, or as a danger to civilization, a denial of nature, an attack on masculinity, or the eff acement of the differences between the sexes. Gender is also sometimes regarded as a totalitarian threat or the work of the devil, and thus cast as the most destructive force in the world, a contemporary and dangerous rival to God that must be countered, or destroyed, at all costs.
In the United States at least, gender is no longer a mundane box to be checked on official forms, and surely not one of those obscure academic disciplines with no effect in the broader world. On the contrary: it has become a phantasm with destructive powers, one way of collecting and escalating multitudes of modern panics. Of course, there are many, completely legitimate reasons to fear our world today. ere is climate disaster, forced migration, lives imperiled and lost in war. ere are neoliberal economies that are depriving people of basic social services they need to live and thrive. ere is systemic racism that takes the lives of many through both slow and quick forms of violence. Women, queer people, and trans people, especially those who are Black or brown, are murdered at appalling rates.
On the Right, however, the list of fears is different: there are challenges to patriarchal power and social structures within the state, civil society, and the heteronormative family unit; waves of migration that threaten traditional ideas of nationhood, white supremacy, and Christian nationalism. e list of what there is to fear goes on, but no list can explain how existing fears of destruction are exploited by right-wing movements, institutions, and states for their own aims, and how terms such as “gender,” “gender theory,” “systemic racism,” or “critical race theory” are blamed for the very disorienting fears that many people across the world now feel about the future of their ways of life. For gender to be identified as a threat to all of life, civilization, society, thought, and the like, it has to gather up a wide range of fears and anxieties—no matter how they contradict one another— package them into a single bundle, and subsume them under a single name. As Freud taught us
about dreams, whatever is happening in phantasms such as these involves the condensation of a number of elements, and a displacement from what remains unseen or unnamed.
Can we even say how many contemporary fears gather at the site of gender? Or explain how the demonization of gender deflects from, and covers over, legitimate anxieties about climate destruction, intensified economic precarity, war, environmental toxins, and police violence, fears we are surely right to feel and think about? When the word “gender” absorbs an array of fears and becomes a catchall phantasm for the contemporary Right, the various conditions that actually give rise to those fears lose their names. “Gender” both collects and incites those fears, keeping us from thinking more clearly about what there is to fear, and how the currently imperiled sense of the world came about in the first place.
Circulating the phantasm of “gender” is also one way for existing powers— states, churches, political movements— to frighten people to come back into their ranks, to accept censorship, and to externalize their fear and hatred onto vulnerable communities. ose powers not only appeal to existing fears that many working people have about the future of their work, or the sanctity of their family life, but also incite those fears, insisting, as it were, that people conveniently identify “gender” as the true cause of their feelings of anxiety and trepidation about the world. Consider the incitation of Pope Francis in 2015. After warning of the existence of “Herods” in every historical period, contemporary “gender theory” is said to consist of new Herodians who “plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation.” Pope Francis then makes clear just how annihilating the force of “gender theory” is: “Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings . . . Let’s also think of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.” Pope Francis continues with a story about how funding for schools serving the poor was provisioned on the condition that “gender theory” be included in the
curriculum; we are not given any details about what precisely is meant by “gender theory,” but it clearly should be feared as one would fear, say, the massive loss of life. To require the teaching of gender in schools is, in his words, “ideological colonization.” He adds that “the same was done by the dictators of the last century . . . think of Hitler Youth.”1
e Vatican’s decision to use infl ammatory rhetoric of this kind is, of course, quite destructive, given the influence of the institution and the generally high esteem in which Pope Francis has been held. If gender is a nuclear bomb, it has to be dismantled. If it is the devil itself, all those who represent gender must be expelled from humanity. What he says is clearly preposterous and dangerous, but also quite tactical: whether fi gured as a weapon of destruction, the devil, a new version of totalitarianism, pedophilia, or colonization, gender has assumed a startling number of phantasmatic forms, eclipsing both academic and ordinary usage. As a consequence, circulating the idea of gender’s destructive powers is one way to produce existential fear that can then be exploited by those who want to enhance state powers with the hopes of returning to a “secure” patriarchal order. e fear is stoked so that those who promise its alleviation can enter as forces of redemption and restoration. It is both produced and exploited in order to rally people to support the destruction of various social movements and public policies understood to be organized by gender.
e weaponization of this fearsome phantasm of “gender” is authoritarian at its core. Rolling back progressive legislation is surely fueled by backlash, but backlash describes only the reactive moment in this scene. e project of restoring the world to a time before “gender” promises a return to a patriarchal dream-order that may never have existed but that occupies the place of “history” or “nature”— an order that only a strong state can restore.2 e shoring up of state powers, including the powers of the courts, implicates the anti-gender movement in a broader authoritarian project. e targeting of sexual and gender minorities as dangers to society, as exemplifying the most destructive force in the world, in order to strip them of their fundamental
rights, protections, and freedoms, implicates the anti–gender ideology in fascism. As panic builds, full license is given to the state to negate the lives of those who have come to represent, through the syntax of the phantasm, a threat to the nation.
In taking aim at gender, some proponents of the anti-gender movement claim to be defending not just family values but values themselves, not just a way of life but life itself. e phantasm that fuels fascist tendencies is one that seeks to totalize the social field, infusing the populace with fear about its existential future— or, rather, exploiting existing fears and giving a totalizing form to its “cause.” It would be tempting to say that “gender” is an empty signifier because it no longer refers to anything we might understand as gender when it attracts and mobilizes fears from several orders in society, including the economic and ecological. But it is less empty than overdetermined, absorbing wildly different ideas of what threatens the world from social history and political discourse. In addition, “gender” designates, even in everyday imagination, some way of living the body, so life and the body constitute its field of operation. Bodily life is bound up with passion and fear, hunger and illness, vulnerability, penetrability, relationality, sexuality, and violence. If the life of the body, the distinct or differentiated life of the body, is already, even under the best of conditions, a site where sexual anxieties cluster, where social norms take up residence, then all the sexual and social struggles in life can fi nd a location and incitement precisely there. As much as “gender” is about so much more than gender in the anti– gender ideology movement, so “gender” outside that discourse is very much about the senses of embodied life formed and framed by social conventions and psychic disturbance. To be told, as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has informed the Italian and Spanish publics, that the advocates of gender will strip you of your sexed identity stokes fear and outrage among those whose sexed identity is fundamental to their very sense of who they are. To manufacture fear for the purposes of stripping trans people of their rights of self-determination is to mobilize the fear of having one’s sexed identity nullified in order to nullify the sexed identities of others. e very
fear of being deprived of something so intimate and defining as a sexed identity depends on a general understanding that this would be, in fact, a deprivation; it would be wrong, in other words, to deprive someone of the sexed aspect of their very being. From this premise it should be possible to universalize the claim, to refuse to engage in any activity that would deprive anyone of their sexed identity, including trans people, but the opposite has proven to be true when asserting the right to one’s own sex requires that others lose theirs. ■
e task before us is to try to understand this rapidly accelerated inflation and combination of potential and literal dangers, and to ask how we can possibly counter a phantasm of this size and intensity before it moves even closer to eradicating reproductive justice, the rights of women, the rights of trans and non-binary people, gay and lesbian freedoms, and all efforts to achieve gender and sexual equality and justice, not to mention the censorship targeting open public discourse and the academy.
We could, of course, provide good arguments about why looking at gender this way is wrong, which would be useful for educators and policymakers who seek to explain why they use the term and find it valuable. We could also try to provide a history that accounts for how gender came to be looked at in this way, paying attention to both its secular and religious versions, noting how right-wing Catholics and Evangelicals overcame some of their differences in their battle against a common enemy. All of these approaches are necessary, but they can hardly account for, or counter, the intensifying phantasmatic force of “gender.” is phantasm, understood as a psychosocial phenomenon, is a site where intimate fears and anxieties become socially organized to incite political passions. What is the structure of this vibrant and distorted phantasm called “gender”? And by what aim is it animated? How do we develop a counter-imaginary strong enough to expose its ruse, scatter its force, and stop the efforts at censorship, distortion, and reactionary politics
that it empowers? It is up to us to produce a compelling counter-vision, one that would affi rm the rights and freedoms of embodied life that we can, and should, protect. For in the end, defeating this phantasm is a matter of affi rming how one loves, how one lives in one’s body, the right to exist in the world without fear of violence or discrimination, to breathe, to move, to live. Why wouldn’t we want all people to have those fundamental freedoms?
If one’s opponents are gripped with fear, overwhelmed by the threat of a dangerous phantasm, then another approach has to emerge. It seems we are not in a public debate at all, precisely because there is no text in the room, no agreement on terms, and fear and hatred have flooded the landscape where critical thought should be thriving. It is a phantasmatic scene. In referring to a “phantasmatic scene,” I adapt the theoretical formulation of Jean Laplanche, the late French psychoanalyst, for thinking about psychosocial phenomena. For Laplanche, fantasy is not simply the product of the imagination— a wholly subjective reality— but in its most fundamental form has to be understood as a syntactical arrangement of elements of psychic life. Fantasy, then, is not just a creation of the mind, a subliminal reverie, but an organization of desire and anxiety that follows certain structural and organizational rules, drawing on both unconscious and conscious material. I would suggest that the organization or syntax of dreams and fantasy is at once social and psychic. Although Laplanche was interested in infancy and the formation of an original fantasy, I am asking whether we can appropriate some aspects of his view to understand anti-gender as a phantasmatic scene. My wager is that we will be better able to respond to this movement and its discourse by framing the matter this way. For when the scene is set, and something called gender is imagined to be acting on children or affecting the public in nefarious and destructive ways, “gender” substitutes for a complex set of anxieties and becomes an overdetermined site where the fear of destruction gathers.
The phantasm can be found in a wide range of movements against progressive legislation. It arrives on the main agenda of Chris-
tian nationalism in Taiwan and the presidential platforms in French elections; it is there not only in the rallying for a defense of European racial purity, national values, and the “natural family” but also in the conservative critique of Europe and its gender-mainstreaming policies, that is, its neoliberal agendas. Wherever it operates, the phantasm brings with it a sadistic elation over being freed of new ethical constraints apparently imposed by feminist and LGBTQIA+ agendas or their mainstreaming apologists. What is remarkable and disturbing is the way that this moral campaign relishes experimenting with various ways of denying the very existence of others, stripping them of rights, refusing their reality, restricting basic freedoms, engaging in shameless forms of racial hatred, and controlling, demeaning, caricaturing, pathologizing, and criminalizing those lives. Hatred is stoked and rationalized by moral righteousness, and all those damaged and destroyed by hateful movements are cast as the truer agents of destruction. ese projections and reversals structure the phantasmatic scene of “gender.” is leaves us with two urgent questions: Who is out to destroy whom? And how do forms of shared and escalating moral sadism pass themselves off as a virtuous order?3
e task is not only to reveal the falsehood but also to defl ate the power of the phantasm to circulate and convince, and to produce another imaginary in which the targets of the anti-gender movement ally with one another to oppose those who would destroy their right to inhabit the world in ways that are livable and free.
e phantasmatic scene is not the same as a fantasy that you or I happen to have in a moment of distraction. It is, rather, a way of organizing the world wrought by the fear of a destruction for which gender is held responsible. And yet, in the effort to expel the term and its putative effects from the world, the anti-gender movement clearly does harm, seeking to dismantle practices, institutions, and policies that have sought to revise and expand freedom and equality—that is, those that have granted greater freedoms to live in the open, to breathe freely without fear of attack, to feel that one has an equal place alongside others in society.
Consider the allegation that “gender”— whatever it is— puts the lives of children at risk. is is a powerful accusation. For some, as soon as the accusation is spoken, it becomes true, and children are not threatened with harm, but are actively being harmed. When that swift conclusion is reached, there is only one option: Stop the harm! Stamp out gender! e fear of children being harmed, the fear that the family, or one’s own family, will be destroyed, that “man” will be dismantled, including the men and man that some of us are, that a new totalitarianism is descending upon us, are all fears that are felt quite deeply by those who have committed themselves to the eradication of gender— the word, the concept, the academic field, and the various social movements it has come to signify. ese fears are, as I am suggesting, bundled into an inflammatory syntax.
Syntax is, broadly speaking, a way of putting elements of language together to make sense of the world. In dreams and fantasies, the arrangement of elements is essential to understanding the sense of what is happening. Linguists who study syntax seek to discern the rules that govern such arrangements. But when Laplanche asked about the syntax of fantasy, he was asking about unconscious arrangements that rely on condensation and displacement, a distinctive way of stringing associations together into a complex unity that compels belief in its reality. Condensation names how disparate psychic and social elements are arbitrarily connected with one another and reduced to a single reality. Displacement names the way that one or many topics are pushed out of the mind— or externalized—in favor of the one that both stands for them and conceals them. We shall see how these two psychic processes, bound up with social fears and anxieties, work in the making and circulating of the gender phantasm.
In a late interview, Laplanche suggests that “ideology” takes place when cultural codes enter into the most primal fantasies where there is no clear way to dissociate the unconscious from the work of the cultural.4 ere are multiple ways of arranging unconscious elements, and the
task is to understand how these elements bind to one another. In his terms, “the primary process . . . [is] the fi rst form of binding. It’s a very loose binding, but it’s a binding. e associations, displacements, and condensations mean there are bindings. ere are pathways established by the primary process.” e task then is not to see how psychoanalysis can be applied to cultural phantasms like “gender,” but to see how a range of cultural and social elements are reorganized through pathways or arrangements already operating at the level of the unconscious. According to this logic, the anti-gender movement is guided by an inflammatory syntax: that is, a way of ordering the world that absorbs and reproduces anxieties and fears about permeability, precarity, displacement, and replacement; loss of patriarchal power in both the family and state; and loss of white supremacy and national purity.5 In the process of reproducing the fear of destruction, the source of destruction is externalized as “gender.” Externalized as a unity, the term condenses a range of elements and intensifies the sense of being imperiled. It also displaces fears about forms of ecological and economic destruction onto a ready substitute, keeping us from addressing those truer sources of world destruction in our times. e result is that gender, now fi rmly established as an existential threat, becomes the target of destruction. Laplanche suggests we should think about “ideology” this way. e anti– gender ideology movement is itself an ideology in his sense. Even though the anti-gender movement is generally anti-Marxist, it borrows from popularized versions of ideology critique in targeting gender. Sometimes “ideologies” are characterized as false ways of knowing, drawing on Marxist notions of false consciousness. Other times an “ideology” is the same as a “point of view” or “a totalizing worldview”— a usage that drains it of all historical meanings and its place in critical thought. Marx and Engels, in e German Ideology (1845– 46), distinguished between mental and physical labor, arguing that those who claimed that thought alone could produce a revolution were badly misguided, and had inverted the actual relation between thought and reality.
Louis Althusser revised that significantly in his article “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (1970), suggesting that ideology substituted abstract forms of thought for more revolutionary ways of opposing— and overcoming— capitalist exploitation as an accepted economic organization of society. Althusser thought that ideology pervaded our lives, like air, and that the effort to break out of the atmosphere of ideology was a difficult one. For it is not just a set of beliefs that we came to adopt in time, but ways of organizing reality that are part of our very formation, including our education. Ideology provides the terms by which we come to understand ourselves, but it also brings us into beings as social subjects.
For instance, at the beginning of life when we are generally called a girl or a boy, and we are suddenly placed in confrontation with a powerful interpellation from elsewhere. What sense is ultimately made of that interpellation cannot be determined in advance. We can, in fact, fail to live up to the demand that such a naming practice communicates— and that “failure” may prove to be a liberation.6 is is why our ability to criticize ideologies is necessarily rooted in the position of a bad or broken subject: someone who has failed to approximate the norms governing individuation, putting us in the difficult position of breaking with our own upbringing or formation in order to think critically in our own way, and to think anew, but also to become someone who does not fully comply with the expectations so often communicated through sex assignment at birth.
■ ■ ■
Although interpreted as a backlash against progressive movements, anti–gender ideology is driven by a stronger wish, namely, the restoration of a patriarchal dream- order where a father is a father; a sexed identity never changes; women, conceived as “born female at birth,” resume their natural and “moral” positions within the household; and
white people hold uncontested racial supremacy. e project is fragile, however, since the patriarchal order it seeks to restore never quite existed in the form they seek to actualize in the present. “Gender” here is a psychosocial scene, a public way of dreaming, for the past that antigender proponents seek to restore is a dream, a wish, even a fantasy that will reinstate order grounded in patriarchal authority. Recruitment into the anti– gender ideology movement is an invitation to join a collective dream, perhaps a psychosis, that will put an end to the implacable anxiety and fear that affl ict so many people experiencing climate destruction fi rsthand, or ubiquitous violence and brutal war, expanding police powers, or intensifying economic precarity.
Stoking a desire for a restoration of masculine privilege serves many other forms of power, but it constitutes its own social project, namely, to produce an ideal past whose reanimation will target, if not eliminate, sexual and gender minorities. is dream not only seeks to restore a rightful place for patriarchal authority, conceived as part of a natural and/or religious order, but also aims at rolling back progressive policies and rights to make marriage exclusively heterosexual, to insist that whatever sex is assigned at birth stays in place, and to restrict abortion because the state knows better what limits should be placed on pregnant people’s bodies. e backlash that we see against “gender” is part of this larger restoration project that seeks to shore up authoritarian regimes as rightful forms of paternalism, the dream come true.
e mobilization of anti-gender sentiment by the Right depends on the credibility of this dream of the past for those who are susceptible to the lures of authoritarianism. In this sense, the fears are neither fully manufactured nor fully discovered as already there. No one is providing historical documentation about the patriarchal order that needs to be restored to its rightful place; it is not a past discoverable in historical time, even if we can fi nd many instances of patriarchal organization throughout history, as many have already done. is idea of a past belongs to a fantasy whose syntax reorders elements of reality in the
service of a driving force that renders opaque its own operation. e dream works only as a phantasmatic organization of reality, one that offers a range of examples and accusations to shore up the political case it wants to make.
It hardly matters that historical documentation of an idealized patriarchal past is not supplied. It surely does not matter that the arguments on offer are riddled with contradiction. e incoherence and impossibility of the case against gender represent contradictory phenomena, and even offer its public a way to collect many of its fears and convictions without ever having to make the bundle coherent: gender represents capitalism, and gender is nothing but Marxism; gender is a libertarian construct, and gender signals the new wave of totalitarianism; gender will corrupt the nation, like unwanted migrants but also like imperialist powers. Which one is it? e contradictory character of the phantasm allows it to contain whatever anxiety or fear that the anti– gender ideology wishes to stoke for its own purposes, without having to make any of it cohere. Indeed, the liberation from historical documentation and coherent logic is part of an escalating exhilaration that feeds a fascist frenzy and shores up forms of authoritarianism.
It matters not that the targets of anti– gender ideology include an array of groups who are not always in alliance: trans people, including trans youth, seeking legal and social recognition and health care; anyone seeking reproductive health care whose manifest priority is not to consecrate the heteronormative family, and that includes anyone seeking an abortion and many seeking birth control; all those waging equal wage campaigns; all those working to pass and conserve laws opposed to discrimination, harassment, and rape; lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who are seeking legal protections; and those struggling to exercise freedoms of expression and movement without fear of violence, punishment, or imprisonment. e opposition to “gender” as a demonic social construct culminates in policies that seek to deprive people of their legal and social rights, that is, to exist within the terms that they
have rightfully established for themselves. Stripping people of rights in the name of morality or the nation or a patriarchal wet dream belongs to the broader logic amplified by authoritarian nationalism to, say, deny migrants rights of asylum, to displace the Indigenous from their lands, to push Black people into the prison system where rights of citizenship are systematically denied and abuse and violence are justified as “legitimate” security measures. e resulting authoritarian restrictions on freedom abound, whether through establishing “LGBT-free zones” in Poland or strangling progressive educational curricula in Florida that address gender freedom and sexuality in sex education. But no matter how intently authoritarian forces attempt to restrict freedoms, the fact that the categories of women and men shift historically and contextually is undeniable. New gender formations are part of history and reality. Ignoring them or trying to outlaw them is a futile effort to negate a living complexity that will certainly not go away in the years to come.
■
Gender has been part of feminism for many decades. When feminists ask the question “What is a woman?” we are acknowledging from the start that the meaning of the category remains unsettled and even enigmatic. Gender is minimally the rubric under which we consider changes in the way that men, women, and other such categories have been understood. So, when we ask questions about men or women or other gendered categories that depart from a binary, or when we ask about what happens in the space between such categories, we are engaging in an inquiry about gender. e question “What is a woman?” or the psychoanalytic question “What does a woman want?” have been asked and commented upon in so many ways that at some point we simply accept that this category is an open one, subject to perpetual interpretation and debate, both in the academy and throughout public discourse.
When abortion rights are restricted by governments because women,
it is said, should not be able to exercise freedoms such as these, women are being defi ned and deprived of fundamental freedom. It is not just that women should not have this freedom, but that the state should decide the limits of their freedom. us, subject to such restrictions, women are defi ned as those whose freedom must be contained by the state. ose who claim to know what place women should occupy in social and political life are adhering to a very specific theory of gender.
ey are not opposed to gender— they have a precise gender order in mind that they want to impose upon the world. ey seek to restore and consolidate a patriarchal dream of settled and hierarchical gender binaries, an order that can be achieved only by destroying the lives of others— or trying to. Destruction, paradoxically, thus becomes the condition of possibility of a patriarchal sexual and gender order that seeks to ward off the prospect of gender’s “destructive” power. Rather than warding off destruction, the anti– gender ideology movement is dedicated to making an ever-more-destructive world.
It is tempting to try to expose and puncture this inflammatory caricature of gender through an intellectual exercise. As an educator, I am inclined to say, “Let’s read some key texts in gender studies together and see what gender does and does not mean and whether the caricature holds up.” We would then hope to deflate the exaggerated phantasm by testing it against the actual texts in which gender is discussed, the actual policies in which it is used. Sadly, such a strategy rarely works. Advocates of the anti-gender position (those who construe gender as an “ideology”) think they have to do away with gender— the field, the concept, the social reality— precisely because they will not read the scholarship on gender that they oppose, refusing, sometimes as a matter of principle, to engage in grounded forms of criticism. eir anti-intellectualism, their distrust of the academy, is at the same time a refusal to enter into public debate. What is dismissed as “academic” procedure is actually required for informed public deliberations in democracies. Informed public debate becomes impossible when some parties refuse to read the material under dispute. Reading is not just a pastime or a luxury, but a precon-
dition of democratic life, one of the practices that keep debate and disagreement grounded, focused, and productive.
Further, the anti-gender advocates are largely committed to not reading critically because they imagine that reading would expose them— or subjugate them—to a doctrine to which they have, from the start, levied objections. ey imagine that it is the gender studies scholars, and not themselves, who have proclaimed allegiance to an ideology or dogma, participating in an uncritical form of thought and action that binds them together as a group and pits them against their opponents. Imagining critical reading, or thought, in this way relies on an inversion of positions and the externalization of the role that the gender critic actually occupies— a consequential form of phantasmatic displacement.
For religious critics who claim to base their opposition to gender on biblical grounds, the only book worth reading on the matter is the Bible itself. To read in an academic way, much less critically, is to concede that there may be other views than those either found in scripture or propounded by religious leaders. A woman in Switzerland once came up to me after a talk I gave and said, “I pray for you.” I asked why. She explained that the scripture says that God created man and woman, and that I, through my books, have denied the scripture. She added that male and female are natural, and that nature was God’s creation. I pointed out that nature admits of complexity, and the Bible itself is open to some differing interpretations, and she scoffed. I then asked if she had read my work, and she replied, “No! I would never read such a book!” It was at that point that I realized that reading a book on gender would be, for her, trafficking with the devil. Her view resonates with the demand to take books on gender out of the classroom, and the fear that those who read such books are contaminated by them, or subject to an ideological inculcation, even though those who seek to restrict these books have typically never read them.
Opponents of gender portray gender advocates as dogmatic, or insist that we are critical of their authority, but never of our own beliefs. And yet gender studies is a diverse field marked by internal debate, several
methodologies, and no single framework. e implicit logic here seems to be that if my opponents are reading in the way I read, and reading is submission to the authority of a text, or set of texts, considered to be unified in their message and authoritative, then gender critics are like their conservative Christian critics, except that each submits to a different dogma. It follows that the gender critics imagine that their opponents read gender theory as they themselves read the Bible, or blindly accept as they do the pronouncements of their preferred authorities. In their excited imagining, gender theory relies on wrongheaded texts authored by false, often intangible authorities who wield a rival and parallel power to biblical authority and compel a similar sort of submission to its claims. Apparently, then, gender is construed as an “ideology” because those who read books about gender are ostensibly subjected to their dogma and do not think independently or critically. e opposition to including books on gender in schools and universities, the new efforts to expunge the curricula of such topics, rests on a certain distrust of reading and its capacity to open the mind to new possibilities.7 On the one hand, the mind should not be open to rethinking how sexuality or gender is socially organized, or how we refer to people more generally. e mind should apparently remain shut in that regard. On the other hand, the mind should be kept free of ideologues who would, apparently, engage in recruitment efforts, nefarious forms of seduction, or even engage in brainwashing. It does not matter that classrooms where gender is taught are full of impassioned debate; that differing schools, methods, and theories conflict; and that many gender scholars draw eclectically from different intellectual legacies formulated in different languages. Gender is said to be an “ideology,” a single and false way of knowing that has captured the minds of those who operate within its parameters— or, even, those who have momentarily been exposed to its workings. Yet the allegation that gender is an ideology mirrors the very phenomenon it decries, for “gender” becomes not only a monolith but also one with enormous power— an ideological move par excellence. is roving
monolith is variously understood to capture the mind, exercise a seductive force, indoctrinate or convert those who come under its power, barge down the borders, ruin the human condition itself. Is this a description of gender studies, or a mirror reflection of a form of religious orthodoxy that has projected its own operation onto gender, figuring it as a rival orthodoxy?
It is nearly impossible to bridge this epistemic divide with good arguments because of the fear that reading will introduce confusion into the reader’s mind or bring her into direct contact with the devil. Indeed, some who oppose “gender” do not read books in gender or feminist studies, queer or trans studies, queer of color critique, Black feminism, or any version of race theory. ey are skeptical of the academy for fear that intellectual debates may well confuse them about the values they hold. eir refusal to care much about consistency, to base their criticisms on a reading of the text, their way of snatching phrases and making them into lightning rods, however, are all fi nally a refusal to think critically, by which I mean, at the least, exercising the freedom of thought to turn over an issue and examine its presuppositions, limits, and potentials. When this freedom is denied, so too is the crucial contribution that the university, and critical thought, makes to public debate where considering different dimensions of a complex issue is crucial to gaining knowledge.8 To be “gender critical” is thus a misnomer deployed by some feminists who make implicit or explicit alliances with the rightwing opposition to gender. eir views are emphatically objectionable not only because they reduce “gender” to a single caricatured version of a complex reality but also because they misunderstand what a “critical” position entails. Critique engages with problems and texts that matter to us in order to understand how and why they work, to let them live in thought and practice in new constellations, to question what we have taken for granted as a fi xed presupposition of reality in order to affi rm dynamic and living sense of our world. Unfortunately, the efforts to expunge gender studies from educational curricula figure
“gender” not as a “useful category of analysis,” in Joan W. Scott’s sense, but as a phantasm of destructive power that needs to be eliminated. e debates over how to think about gender more readily define the current discourse on gender in a wide range of academic and policy fields rather than in any one theory. ese debates drive both research and public discourse to become more responsive to increasingly complex social realities. To refuse gender is, sadly, to refuse to encounter that complexity, to refuse, in other words, to let one’s thinking be transformed by the complexity that one finds in contemporary life across the world. And yet the monolith of gender, apparently enormous in its size and power, persists among those who use its phantasmatic fearsomeness to rally the masses to support stronger state powers. It hardly matters, it seems, that the anti– gender ideology movement takes aim at a version of gender to which no gender theorist subscribes.9 is refusal of gender critics to read the texts they oppose— or to learn how best to read them— makes sense only if reading is taken to be an uncritical exercise. And if an uncritical reading or reception of the texts they deem authoritative is what they defend, they more purely illustrate what is properly called an ideological or dogmatic position, that is, one that refuses questions, challenges, and a spirit of open inquiry. is attitude is part of the broader anti-intellectual trend marked by its hostility to all forms of critical thought.
e same attitude circulates widely in the public opposition to “critical race theory.” In a lecture at the Claremont Institute in California, a conservative think tank, Christopher Rufo railed against CRT, but when asked whether he could explain what CRT is, he floundered and refused, saying, “I don’t give a shit about this stuff.” Rufo, a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, refuses to read or study the academic field against which he has waged a culture war, one that includes an attack on “queer theory,” which, he claims, consists of “lessons on ‘sex liberation,’ ‘gender exploration,’ ‘BDSM,’ ‘being a sex worker,’ . . . and ‘sexual activity while using licit and illicit drugs.”10 Has he attended such classes? Has
he studied such curricula? If he were a student in any of those classes, his teachers would doubtless ask him to support his argument with evidence or a good reading, since such protocols are, in fact, what we teach. Like the Swiss woman who moved quickly toward the door after confessing she would never touch a book on gender, Rufo shamelessly proclaims his ignorance about a field he is nevertheless willing to condemn.
We might be tempted to conclude that the task is to make our enemies smarter, to ask them to read and discuss, but that misses the point. As opponents of gender and critical race theory, these groups also oppose universities not for the ostensible dogma they teach, but for the open mind they risk producing. As a project that shuts down the kind of critical thinking that contests the heteronormative status quo, the anti-gender movement is a politically consequential form of antiintellectualism, opposing thought itself as a danger to society—fertile soil for the horrid collaboration of fascist passions with authoritarian regimes.
My task here is neither to provide a new theory of gender nor to defend or reconsider the performative theory that I offered nearly thirtyfi ve years ago, and that clearly now seems questionable in several ways, especially in light of trans and materialist criticisms.11 I hope only to refute some falsehoods in the process and to understand how and why these falsehoods surrounding “gender” are circulating with the phantasmatic power that they do. What powers do they serve, and how can they be countered? Indeed, if I could offer a single and persuasive account of gender to demonstrate the falsity of what right-wing critics, and some of their feminist and positivist allies, have to say about it, it would be an easier task than the one at hand. e truth, as usual, is more complex, which requires critical reading and a commitment to countering psychosocial phantasms that have the power to frighten and rally people not only to ultraconservative causes but also to authoritarian figures who ride the wave of neofascist trends in contemporary society and politics. My hope is to show that opening up a discussion