Painting by Christina Quarles (check out her work, it’s amazing)
As you may know, I’ve been reading and analysing some books I think reflect current situations, and have decided to start a series of reviews for the blog. This is the third review. If you’d like, you can access the first and second here.
Judith Butler is a renowned philosopher and gender theorist best known for their work on gender performativity. They are a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and have written several influential books, including Gender Trouble (1990), which greatly shaped queer theory and feminist thought. Butler boasts many qualifications, including a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University and decades of scholarly work in gender studies, critical theory, and ethics. Their background as a nonbinary lesbian feminist and scholar deeply shapes their perspective in Who’s Afraid of Gender? Having spent decades studying and writing about gender, sexuality, and power, Butler approaches the material with a critical eye toward systems of oppression and the ways in which gender norms are enforced. Their lived experience within the LGBTQ community gives them personal insight into the stakes of these debates, and while these insights aren’t present directly in the book, their academic work provides the tools to analyze the cultural, political, and philosophical roots of gender backlash. This combination allows Butler to speak from a personal background yet write analytically. Their perspective challenges readers to see gender not as a threat, but as a human rights issue tied to broader struggles for freedom, identity, and social justice.
The book is structured into an introduction, ten chapters, and a final conclusion. In the introduction, Judith Butler writes about how the term “gender” has become the central focus point of fear and resistance among conservative and right-wing movements globally. They write about how these movements have constructed a monolithic and threatening notion of “gender,” often called “gender ideology,” and presented it as a destabilizing force against traditional values, family structures, and social norms. This constructed anxiety is used to attack reproductive rights, dismantle defenses against sexual and gender-based violence, and take away the rights of transgender and queer persons. Butler argues that this resistance is a stand-in for deeper fears of social change and the weakening of entrenched systems of power. By a critique of the presentation of “gender” as a threat, Butler sets the stage for a discussion regarding more general solidarity calls between marginalized groups and calls for subverting the reactionary narratives.
Chapter One, “The Global Scene” begins with an overview of the Vatican, and how, according to the Catholic church, “the sexual division of labor is to be found in the nature of sex: women are to do domestic work and men are to undertake action in paid employment and public life. The integrity of the family, understood as both Christian and natural, was said to be imperiled by a specter looming on the horizon: ‘gender ideology.’” (Butler 31). The main thesis throughout the chapter is that world actors have constructed even just the term “gender” as a threat by conservative and authoritarian movements to justify attacks on reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ identities, and feminist politics. Butler then provides examples, citing the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women and Pope Francis’ views that there are only men and women created by God, as well as his support for homosexual civil unions (not marriages or sexualities themselves). She also discusses the removal of course curriculum discussing gender in French schools, as well as the Vatican’s analogies to gender, including nazism and nuclear war. In this chapter, she also acknowledges that there are opposing views within gender theory if gender is hardwired, internal, and with zero aspect of choice, or if it is chosen or shaped by culture and interest. They respond by explaining that “… a distinction should be made between whether or not gender and sexuality are chosen and whether people should be free to live according to the gender and sexuality that they are…. All of them deserve the right to live freely, which means that their demand for political freedom does not necessarily presuppose that gender or sexuality is chosen,” (34). Also in this chapter, they emphasize the contradictions within the anti-gender movement, that it takes away freedoms while providing too much freedom, amongst other things. They close the chapter with case studies of countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, Uganda, Taiwan, and others and their oppositions to “gender ideology”, as well as some transnational networks such as the World Congress of Families and CitizenGo.
In Chapter Two, “Vatican Views” Butler proposes that the Vatican is crucial to “understand how the phantasmatic scene that conditions the anti-gender ideology movement seeps into arguments, tightens social and political regulations, and even offers itself up as a demonstration and defense of rationality” (55). Butler cites that the Vatican views “self construction” as a dangerous expression of freedom that steals powers from God. They cite several instances where the Pope has used leftist rhetoric to argue against single-parent and blended families, people who use reproductive technologies, abortion rights, lesbian and gay marriage, and queer kinship. Bulter acknowledges that Vatican positions can sometimes appear reasonable, as the Pope has mentioned that there is a form of gender studies that’s acceptable. But goes on to retort that the distinction is unstable and the line between acceptable and unacceptable vanishes at times. They claim that the Vatican’s teachings are simple: “The world, then the “teachings” that follow are clear: followers must oppose abortion and contraception, gay and lesbian sex, gay and lesbian marriage, transgender identity, and even intersex identity. Both “transgender” and “intersex” are regarded as “fictitious” (61). The Vatican effectively erases and regards intersex people as not real while simultaneously professing compassion. They claim the Vatican uses arguments against relativism and equips pedophilia, molestation, and other fears to produce its effect, and reminds readers that logic will always yield to inflammatory rhetoric. The church scapegoats queer people to project and disarm the harm they themselves have done to children. Finally, Bulters asserts that educational programs that show complex and non-heterosexual sexualities do not make children gay but instead show that gay and lesbian lives simply exist and deserve dignity and respect. Exposure to a topic does not make you become it.
Chapter Three “Contemporary Attacks on Gender in the United States” shifts to a national focus. Butler makes the claim that deprivation and censorship within education are among the worst and increasing forms of disenfranchisement in the United States. Butler cites several laws and actions taken against queer communities, including DeSantis’s laws and policies in Florida, bans on gender-affirming care, book bans on anything containing homosexuality, race, feminism, and other topics, as well as bills that defund gender studies and intersectionality studies at higher education institutions in Wyoming. They reiterate that being exposed to an idea does not equate to indoctrination, and that many of those who make allegations against these matters have no idea what is actually happening in classrooms. Bulter asserts the harm this does to pupils: “The association of sex education with child abuse infuses this public debate with enormous moral anxiety and fear, adding to the phantasm that is “gender” or “sex.” Similarly, the child who is “exposed” to literature that discusses lesbian and gay lives or families, sexuality, or the bullying of genderqueer kids is endangered by that literature and any discussion about it” (74). They further defend their claim buy reminding readers of the direct link between these motions and harm to children: “Denying children access to materials that allow them to understand the gender spectrum, or how homophobic bullying takes place on the playground or, indeed, in the classroom, produces isolation and stigmatization for queer and trans kids, a condition historically associated with depression and suicide. It deprives them of knowledge and skills they need to navigate this world” (76). They then carry this logic to critical race theory, which they believe is opposed so strongly because it has the capacity to make white children uncomfortable, which of couse overpowers any positive effects from teaching black and brown children vital information and tools to understand the world they were born into. They conclude with a powerful quote, “Heteronormativity becomes mandatory, backed by law or doctrine… the task becomes how to affirm life with others in ways that give value and support to all those who seek to breathe, love, and move without fear of violence. Where, by the way, is “pro-life” in this scene? No state that withholds health care and recognition from trans kids is affirming their lives.” (78).
Chapter Four, “Trump, Sex, and the Supreme Court” Butler asserts that the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine sex would simply be used to encourage bigotry and discrimination, as lesbian, gay, trans, intersex, or queer people would no longer be protected against discrimination, with the determination of sex placed somewhere between the ambiguous “plain-speaking” and genitals. Why would Trump want this? Butler says, for him, it was “less a theoretical question about the sex/gender distinction than a rhetorical move meant to secure a sexual world order that fortifies patriarchy and heteronormativity, and is presumptively organized by white norms” (84). They also note that there does not need to be a direct and common definition of sex for it to be protected from discrimination. It is only necessary to understand what role sex is playing in discriminatory actions, and how prejudiced mentalities lead to these actions. In fact, most assumptions by discriminators are false, unjustifiable, and often based on stereotypes or gender presentation. Butler uses the Bostock v Clayton County as her evidence throughout the chapter, elaborating on the Trump and Supreme Court’s arguments, as well as citing the Supreme Court ruling’s theoretical examples. In Trump’s eyes, transgender people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex because the discrimination they face is not against their sex assigned at birth. Butler reminds readers that there is no guarantee that the initial sex assignment of a person will not change throughout their life. They also explain that the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter was based on the doctrine of equal treatment, while their ruling to overturn Roe v Wade was about rights to privacy, and recalling freedoms that were previously ensured. This means Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell might follow, as Clarence Thomas has warned. Butler writes that “‘The state’s interest’ is enlarged through the eradication of fundamental freedoms, those that belong to women, to trans people, to queer people, to educators and academics, to policymakers and legislators working for greater social freedoms and equality” (94) and reiterates that one cannot separate feminism, the rights of women, the rights of trans and queer people, socio and economic equality, and the rights of pregnant people, as they all together form an alliance against increasing authoritarian power.
In Chapter Five, “TERFs and British Matters of Sex” Butler discusses how some feminists have begun to use and validate right-wing arguments and oppose “gender”. This effectively refutes the existence of trans identity through claims that sex is real but gender is not. It also flips on its head the entire diverse history of feminism and its definitions of these terms. Butler asserts their main arguement that TERFs represent “a form of feminism that actively supports the derealization of trans people and engages in forms of discrimination that arguably go against the commitment to equality for which feminism has stood” (99). They do stop to acknowledge that some of these trans-exclusionary feminists call themselves “gender-critical” feminists, they claim that anti-trans politics is not their most important concern. Butler rebuts that gender-critical is the wrong term to use, as a critique of something is not just a term for opposing something or calling for its abolition and a critique of the gender binary would simply mean asking why gender is organized the way it is, a way of imagining something else. These people are not gender critical, they are trans-exclusionary. They say they are against gender identity ideology, but only seem to care about trans people, not gender division in capitalism or other senses of gender gaps. Bulter prompts the reader to consider “why the life of a trans woman should threaten in any way the life of a woman who has kept her original sex assignment” (104) a way of thinking she likens to the Vatican’s stance, though TERFs are hesitant to identify with it. They strengthen their argument with descriptions of anti-trans and non-binary legislation in Spain where the trans law was debated in 2023, and the United Kingdom, where the debate has been going on since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, implemented in 2005, and revised in 2018. These TERFs live on a line, as they share views with the right on the anti-gender ideology movement, yet are also under attack by them, as their feminist status challenges patriarchal ideas. Their definition of feminism “is a form of effacement, and their right to define you is apparently more important than any right you have to determine who you are” (109). Turning to JK Rowling’s statement, Butler refutes the argument that trans women are abusve, hurting and raping “real” women, because they are actually men, and might still have penises, writing, “we would have to know whether all men are potential or actual abusers, whether they are abusive because of their penis, whether trans men with or without penises are part of that class of abusers, and whether other kinds of abuse are occluded by this rather stringent framework for identifying when and how it happens” (114) given that women are always victims and never abusers. Butler reiterates that trans women are one of the most vulnerable groups, which includes those who may or may not have penises, and have already disidentified from traditional masculinity.
Chapter Six, “What About Sex” is Butler’s venture into sex assignment, and the argument that “gender theory” is a denial of science. They open by reminding readers that removing sex from the equation will not affect discrimination cases, as to make any decision solely regarding sex is in fact discriminatory itself, and the goal is to remove this basis in the first place, which will in turn decrease discrimination based on sex. Next, they refute the idea that reproductive capacity is sex differentiated, as this places the entire idea of womanhood on reproduction, and as feminists have always insisted, some women cannot have children, some people who can have children are not women, some women are too old or too young, some women do not want children, some women never even know if they can or cannot have children, and most women do not want to be utterly defined by this trait. They once again acknowledge and counter the opposing Trumpian belief that gender should be based on body parts and common sense, recalling that slavery and homophobia were also once “common sense”. Butler asserts that sex lives at the intersection of biological and social sources, adding nutrition and health, as well as clean air and pollution as further examples of this. They state, “To argue that a number of formative powers act upon the matter of sex, including our own self-formative powers, is not to deny sex, but to offer an alternative way of understanding its reality apart from a natural-law thesis of complementarity or any form of biological determinism” (128). They briefly discuss “whether sex assignment ever takes place without an imaginative framework or one that actively helps to craft what there is to be seen” (129), and how even performative statements and actions modify actual reality, both through and outside of the state.
Chapter Seven, “What Gender Are You?” Further discusses sex assignment. In the question of women’s sports, Butler explains that sex is more complicated than the gender binary would imply, citing a study conducted by the International Olympic Committee which found low testosterone levels in men and high levels in women as support for this point. They remind readers that “One thing we know is that the hormonal spectrum is large, and that we cannot decide who is and is not a woman on the basis of testosterone levels alone” (137). They once again point to a social and biological intersection, arguing that male or female puberty may matter, but likely much more so the clubs and trainers available based on class and other social factors. There is only outcry when trans athletes win, and the discriminatory efforts to exclude them are visible, but it would be just as discriminatory to refuse to let them compete. Butler also discusses John Money’s Gender Identity clinic in relation to gender dimorphism, asserting that his issue was believing that “medical knowledge was expected to serve the task of social normalization. He and his fellow researchers presumed something was wrong with the body… they did not question whether something might be wrong with the normative phantasms suffusing sex assignment practices” (140). His efforts to “fix” these intersex patients of course were cruel, and left horrible lasting physical and psychological scars. Butler asks their readers if these categories are necessary or exhaustive, and offers the idea to “make our own” (141) while reminding that the question decades ago would have been how to “fix” intersex infants, to ensure they will conform completely to either of the two options.
In Chapter Eight, “Nature/Culture: Toward Co-Construction” Butler argues that the distinction of sex as nature and gender as culture has created some problems, as it considers gender as almost artificial. They cite the contradictory “Sex Matters” a United Kingdom TERF group that warns against scientists who affirm there exists a spectrum of sex, yet maintains that there is science behind sex which is completely biological and a factor of nature itself.
Chapter Nine, “Racial and Colonial Legacies of Gender Dimorphism” continues the idea Butler presents in the previous chapter, discussing “the racial and colonial legacies of both nature/culture and the racialized ideals of gender dimorphism to understand the social and political implications of the nature/culture divide as well as some ways out from its impasses” (147). Butler argues it is impossible to separate the gender binary from its colonial and imperialist history, as it was these powers which imposed heteronormatice white norms on black and brown people. They also cite Catherine Clune-Taylor, Sally Markowitz, and C. Riley Snorton all of whom have done work arguing that the sex/gender system of social norms is perhaps what creates the biological differences as well. For example, men being bigger or stronger than women might be because sociocultural norms encourage muscularity and eating larger amounts of food. They also discuss how women’s medicine was built upon the horrid experiments performed without anesthesia on black women during and after slavery, and how these women were not even considered women, simply flesh. Butler describes this as a form of “visceral derealization of Black bodies in the service of norms of whiteness, including white ideals of gender dimorphism” (154) and urges that the critique of “violently imposed white norms of masculine and feminine in slavery and its long afterlife as well as the colonial imposition of binary gender imply that it is the gender binary that is imposed by colonial and racist powers and their colonial representatives, not the other way around ” (156). Lastly, they oppose the “bio-logic” that has a false claim of universality, as many Indigenous and African societies do not exist within the gender binary, and also do not exist within Anglo terms. They remind readers that “The idea that homophobia is a premodern problem, and that it must be combated by more modern or “advanced” nations teaching those who are less modern, proves to be false: homophobia is very much alive throughout Europe and is accelerating in the United States as well” (161).
Chapter Ten, “Foreign Terms, or the Disturbance of Translation,” discusses how the word “gender” is sometimes contested by non-English speaking countries, usually because it is a foreign and unknown word, and can be viewed as cultural imperialism. Butler, in turn, asserts that “Translation is not only a practice but also a way of developing a multilingual epistemology, one that is badly needed to preserve local and regional languages from extinction, to counter the hegemony of English, and to help readers develop complex ways of understanding each other and the world” (164). They explain that we can learn from the resistance to the English word and simultaneously develop an alternative understanding by thinking of gender as a scene of translation. Here, Butler acknowledges a different perspective, that of the feminists and gender theorists that argue there are genders beyond man and woman and that these gender categories should be transcended altogether. They provide their own view that “we should seek to bring about a world where the many relations to being socially embodied that exist become more livable, and people generally become more open to the ways that gender can be done and lived without judgment, fear, or hatred ” (167). They remind us that ‘livable’ conditions are defined by one’s own person, and the grand idea is that everyone respects each other’s form of ‘liveable.’
In their conclusion, “The Fear of Destruction, the Struggle to Imagine,” Butler paints an image of the human pursuit of destruction, offering climate destruction, war, systemic racism, capitalism, poverty, global slums, detention centers, deregulation, neoliberalism, authoritarianism, new forms of fascism, and homelessness as supportive examples. They assert these ideas become linked to gender by way of religious authorities and state powers using gender to inspire continuous fear of destruction. Then once gender is identified as a cause of destruction, people want to destroy it, which opens the floodgates for “censorship, the de-departmentalization of gender studies and women’s studies, the stripping of rights of health care, increased pathologization, restricting spaces for public gathering, the repeal or rejection of laws that protect against discrimination, and the passing of laws that segregate, silence, and criminalize those who are trying to live their lives without fear” (176). They further support this claim with the anti-gender movement’s instance that they are ‘saving the children’ despite the murders, fear, injuries, and lack of access to healthcare queer and trans kids face, as well as the safety of women, the discrimination of LGBTQIA+ people, the fear of police among black and brown people, and more. They explain further: “When the anti-gender movement says that gender will strip you of your sexed identity, they are trying to strip a group of people of their sexed identity” (178) and assert once more that queer families do not negate heterosexual ones, just as trans people’s self-determination takes no one else’s rights away. Gender politics must oppose neoliberalism, colonization, racism, and climate destruction. It should form alliances with both human and nonhuman life to create a radical democracy. Finally, they restate their intention of the book, to argue against key claims from the anti-gender ideology movement, including the ideas that “gender is a fabrication and only “natural” sex is real, that gender belongs to a totalitarian regime or will bring one about, that it exemplifies hyper-capitalism and has stolen creative powers from the divine, that it is a force of destruction comparable to Ebola or a nuclear war, that it is a form of colonization, that it harms children” (185). They assert once again the importance of gender to feminists and to fascists, drawing a final comparison between the anti-gender movement and fascism, and reminding feminists that there is no chance against forces that deny women rights without the recognition of all women, and that the future is the one we create.
As for my personal opinion, Who’s Afraid of Gender? is overly dense and difficult to read, which significantly limits its accessibility. Although the book was marketed as an accessible exploration of global gender politics, its academic language and complex structure may discourage general readers. Especially those without a background in gender studies, they may pick it up only because it’s supposedly accessible, only to have such struggles engaging with the material they never pick up another gender studies book. This is a notable weakness, particularly given the importance of the subject matter and the need to reach a wider audience. Additionally, while Butler is effective at critiquing the arguments of anti-gender and anti-LGBTQ+ movements, the book lacks a clear and detailed vision for what should replace the systems she critiques. Refuting harmful ideologies is important, but it is equally important to articulate constructive alternatives. Though Butler occasionally gestures toward inclusive and democratic ideals, her suggestions for the future remain slightly vague, especially when compared to the depth and precision with which she analyzes current problems. As a result, the book sometimes feels imbalanced, too strong in its critique but less convincing in offering a path forward.
That said, for readers with some familiarity with gender theory, the book’s arguments, though challenging, are thought-provoking and insightful. I feel more educated and confident concerning the topics, and am glad to have read the book in an academic setting along with a professor who offered much-needed explanations. Despite its inaccessibility, Who’s Afraid of Gender? presents valuable ideas about the intersection of gender, power, and global politics, and contributes meaningfully to contemporary debates on human rights and social justice.
Who’s Afraid of Gender? was reviewed by several major publications from the UK and US, including The Washington Post, The Guardian, the Chicago Review of Books, and Kirkus Reviews. Overall, critics praised Judith Butler’s sharp analysis of how gender has been politicized and weaponized by conservative and authoritarian groups. Kieth Contorno noted that Butler effectively exposes the “phantasm” of gender anxiety used to justify oppression. Kirkus Reviews described the book as a “master class” in revealing how gender is used to uphold conservative values. However, reviewers also raised significant concerns. Becca Rothfeld in The Washington Post felt that while Butler’s critiques are often accurate, they can be abstract and not always useful, remarking that “quibbling with hacks is a waste of a formidable thinker’s intellect.” Some critics also pointed out that the book’s structure at times felt repetitive, as Butler returned to the same examples and rhetorical strategies without always moving the argument forward. Despite these criticisms, most reviewers acknowledged the importance of Butler’s intervention in today’s heated cultural and political climate.
The implications of Who’s Afraid of Gender? can be political and cultural. Judith Butler argues that the global backlash against gender—seen in anti-trans legislation, attacks on feminism, and the rise of right-wing movements—represents a fear of social change and a desire to reinforce rigid, traditional norms. This backlash isn’t just about gender itself but is part of a larger attempt to control bodies, identities, and freedoms. If more of the general public understood this, it may spur more change and progression for the LGBTQ community, as it would remove barriers that discourage many people who might otherwise be accepting by connecting this fight to another cause they feel strongly about. Critically, the book has been praised for its current necessity and connection of gender politics to global struggles over democracy, nationalism, and human rights. Its reception highlights how Butler’s ideas can help people understand not just academic theories of gender, but also the real-world consequences of policies and rhetoric that target marginalized groups. Overall, the book encourages readers to resist fear-based narratives and to support more inclusive, equitable societies.
Leave a Reply