Zizek responds to reddit and other critics:

CAGES?

I already have a good idea what the G and S stand for, but pls explain?

Class Age Gender Ethnicity Sexuality.

It's just a handy acronym that they teach you in Sociology 101.

There is nothing really of value to answer in that article.

Really, Zizek doesn't say that the existence of trans people is impossible. What is impossible is eliminating teh deadlock of gender difference , because gender identification is that very oppositional element itself. But that guy idiotically conflates that Lacanian symbolic unsexed world with gender (and not sexuality).

Lacan isn't saying that if the sexual relationship is impossible then any identifiable symbolic identity is impossible. But that merely that we exist in relation with endless array of symbols which exist in language. That guy is trying to lazily say "well gender is a social construct because it is merely symbolic, but that's not the point of Lacan at all. Genders are opposed and are impossible to communicate because they exist in a long chain of signifiers, you exist in relationship to your father as a son and that's why you have the Oedipal fear of castration and that father is connected to his father in a long chain, this isn't merely a biological relation or a symbolic one, it is an unconscious network , and as Lacan said the unconscious functions essentially like a language.

The impossibility of a genderless world is not the same thing as a world without that "third" element in gender. Which is why Zizek takes the wise road of saying real biological differences do count as much as symbolic ones (unlike Judith Butler) , they are just very hard o pin down. This is what the thick headed gender-queer left in the US cannot get, and it always freaks out when it confronts philosophy that uses logic that goes beyond A=A.

I can understand why he's annoyed. These dullards don't just not understand him, they ridicule him based on their own misattributions and lack of understanding.

No. I expect him to look for actual responses that refute him with the same language of psychoanalysis before turning to random assholes on reddit and declaring that he can't find a single critique that doesn't misunderstand what he's saying.

The problem is that these assholes on reddit hound and slander/libel him at his talks or wherever

Interesting. It's been 6 years since I took a sociology course, and either they never taught us that or I conveniently forgot it 🌚

Maybe it's not a universal thing, but it was present in the sociology department I was taught in.

This response is pretty great. It's just a slam-jam of "no, you idiot, this is what I am talking about and this is why you're an idiot."

I wanted to get into Zizek but all this talk of trannies is disheartening. Where do I begin and is it all idpol?

No, Zizek hardly talks about idpol at all, especially not in a positive light.

Try First As Tragedy, Then As Farce and Violence. If you want something a bit meatier, try The Sublime Object of Ideology.

It's the exact opposite of idpol

thanks fam

I find that typo deeply satisfying

its an acronym for Hard Ass Mother-fucker

Once again he's spot on, once again academic illiterates will not understand it and will demonise him.

Gulags now

Thanks OP, good read.

I've never seen Lacanians talk about 'gender' in positive terms (affirming it's theoretical legitimacy). Lacan's 'sexuation' makes more sense. Gender is a silly term if you think about it, a strange mix of (dehistoricized) "set of rules" and ideological interpellation. A totally desexualized way of conceptualizing human activity. See: e-flux.com/journal/sexual-difference-and-ontology/

If that piece is riddled with such commentary ignoring it was the only sensible response.