Talk:Judith Butler

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Non-Binary AND lesbian at the same time?

Since Judith Butler describes herself/themself as non-binary she/they technically cannot be lesbian at the same time. Either Butler is a woman or she has no gender affiliation. The fact that J.B. remains to be a biological woman seems to be irrelevant nowadays since self-identification beats biology. According to this reasoning the tag "lesbian" and all mentions thereof must be removed. (provocative, I know, but I am open to debate) Schmutzman (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-binary people who still use the term lesbian for themselves, and plenty of lesbians who are also attracted to non-binary people. As editors, it's not our job to police someone's labels. We just need to follow the sources. Hist9600 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

They also use the she pronoun so that could solve the logical contradiction. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No sexuality excludes non-binary people. Non-binary isn't a single third gender. There are demigender and multigender experiences that include connection to womanhood, for example. When Judith Butler came out as n-b, they didn't say they stopped being lesbian. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone hasn't spent any time at all in lesbian communities. There is significant overlap. Meditaris-avena (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Stupid question here: Is wikipedia about informing the readers or pandering to the person who the article is about? If Trump considers himself to be an honest person who always tells the truth ... is that what wikipedia will label him? It is a label and like the poster above me wrote "it's not our job to police someone's labels". This attitude just does not make sense because it leaves the door open for misinformation. 2001:871:22B:616:B014:77AC:1B45:ECF9 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

One is always saddled with the burden of evaluating the reliability and relevance of a source. There is no formula for truth. No system or policy is immune from misinformation. Could you help me to understand what portions of the article you believe are "pandering?" Is there an source being cited for the content of this article you deem to be unreliable? If so how? 50.120.71.37 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The Psychic Life of Power

Isn't this one of Butler's major works? Shouldn't it be covered in "Major works" section? 2A00:23C8:9C2B:3D01:2D85:C4A2:E44A:AB6E (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Already. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Pronouns

The constant use of 'they-their" is just bad English and makes the article difficult to read. As far as I know Butler is just one person. It would be better English to use "this person" or "This person". Seki1949 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Seki! Singular they has been used in English since the Middle Ages. Should we dig up Chaucer and tell him he was a bad boy for using it? I'm sure past speakers would be aghast at our use of you in the singular and plural, instead of ye. On that note, they would probably also bemoan the loss of thou, thee, and thy.

Wikipedia generally tries to be respectful of subjects' identities. Since that's what Butler uses (and has stated a preference for in an interview), that's what we use. Snowman304|talk 02:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Greeting. Chaucer's usage is interesting, but irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry in 2026. Seki1949 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately several years of precedent is relevant, and that precedent tells us that singular they is totally fine. Lostsandwich (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that a similar idea was already tried but it didn't catch on. "Thon", meaning "that one", was proposed as a gender neutral pronoun in the mid nineteenth century. Maybe it is a pity that it didn't become popular but it didn't and we are left with singular "they" as the most widely accepted form. I can see why some people don't like it but it's not for us to tell other people what pronouns they can use and, besides, there's no point in getting in a fight with the dictionary. That's always an embarrassing waste of time. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Open letter section?

A new section has been added at Judith_Butler#Open_letter and I am genuinely unable to make any sense of it. I can't tell whether it covers a notable matter that is due for inclusion here. Butler is only one of many signatories and there is no indication that they organised the letter themself or of the letter's significance. (It certainly doesn't seem to merit a whole section though.) The only source on it is the letter itself, not secondary coverage of Butler's involvement. Should we remove this or is it valid content that just needs rewriting to make it comprehensible? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it now. You can see it in this diff --DanielRigal (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)