Judith Butler is the woman probably most responsible for the idea that gender identity is something you decide on rather than something you are born into. Butler has a new book out now called Who’s Afraid of Gender? which is meant as a harsh rebuttal to all of the critics of her ideas. Without really trying to I've read two different reviews of the book both of which didn't seem to think it was very good. I can't remember where I read the first one (maybe the NY Times?) but the second one was published Sunday by the Atlantic. Author Katha Pollitt makes a pretty compelling case that the book isn't worth your time, primarily because the author hasn't thought very deeply about the claims she is making.

The central idea of Who’s Afraid of Gender? is that fascism is gaining strength around the world, and that its weapon is what Butler calls the “phantasm of gender,” which they describe as a confused and irrational bundle of fears that displaces real dangers onto imaginary ones. Instead of facing up to the problems of, for example, war, declining living standards, environmental damage, and climate change, right-wing leaders whip up hysteria about threats to patriarchy, traditional families, and heterosexuality. And it works, Butler argues: “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.” Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, Vladimir Putin, even Pope Francis—all inveigh against “gender.”...

But is the gender phantasm as crucial to the global far right as Butler claims? Butler has little to say about the appeal of nationalism and community, insistence on ethnic purity, opposition to immigration, anxiety over economic and social stresses, fear of middle-class-status loss, hatred of “elites.”...

Butler mentions international organizations, such as the World Congress of Families, that seek to return us to the 1950s, or maybe the 1850s. But is obsession with “gender” really the primary motive behind current right-wing movements? And why is it so hard to trust that the noise around “gender” might actually be indicative of people’s real feelings, and not just the demagogue-fomented distraction Butler asserts it is? Their theory sounds a lot like an imposed false consciousness: You think you’re upset about Drag Queen Story Hour, but really you’re being distracted from deeper worries about unemployment or climate destruction. Instead of proving that “gender” is a crucial part of what motivates popular support for right-wing authoritarianism, Butler simply asserts that it is, and then ties it all up with a bow called “fascism.”...

Fascism is a word that Butler admits is not perfect but then goes on to use repeatedly. I’m sure I’ve used it myself as a shorthand when I’m writing quickly, but it’s a bit manipulative. As used by Butler and much of the left, it covers way too many different issues and suggests that if you aren’t on board with the Butlerian worldview on every single one of them, a brown shirt must surely be hanging in your closet. As they define it—“fascist passions or political trends are those which seek to strip people of the basic rights they require to live”—most societies for most of history have been fascist, including, for long stretches, our own. That definition is so broad and so vague as to be useless. You might even say that “fascism” functions as a kind of phantasm, frightening people into accepting views wholesale without examining them individually.

This is the left's old clinging to guns and religion argument that even former president Obama seems to have adopted as an explanation for his opponents views. It can't be that there are responsible gun owners or genuinely faithful people or Americans with reasonable concerns about overwhelming the border. It must be the case that all of these inexplicable views are compensating for personal losses and disappointments the benighted right-leaning half of the country just can't articulate. (The implication that everyone who disagrees with progressive views is just dumb has been a given part of the left's outlook for a long time.)

Butler is just substituting her views of gender for those other things. And since none of her opponents can be arguing in anything but bad faith, it's easy to dismiss them as fascists.

Speaking of her critics, Butler's book apparently only mentions two TERFs, i.e. opponents of her views, by name. One is British philosopher Kathleen Stock and the other is J. K. Rowling. The only critical quotes that appear in the book come from Rowling and are quickly dismissed. "In essence, Butler accuses gender-crits of 'phantasmatic' anxieties," Pollitt writes. 

So simple! Her critics are fascists whose concerns aren't real. This is the kind of penetrating insight that I'm sure will be a hit with campus radicals.

Pollitt on the other hand offers some real insight into the subject of her review. The most interesting paragraph in her review points out the inherent irony of a professor who is famous for claiming all gender is socially produced and contingent failing to show any interest in identifying what social forces are currently producing a surge of trans-identified teens. "Butler seems to suggest that being trans is being your authentic self, but what is authenticity?" Pollitt writes.

You really can't have it both ways. If the gender binary is a performative product of social attitudes imposed on impressionable kids then so is nonbinary and trans identity, albeit coming from a very different society (usually one found online, often by kids with other problems besides gender dysphoria). It's hard to believe this has never occurred to Judith Butler but if it has she isn't offering to apply her own critical lens to this particular group of people.