Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender
Articles Blog

Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender

November 23, 2019

It’s one thing to say that gender is performed
and that is a little different from saying gender is performative.  When we say gender is performed we usually
mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role
playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world.  To say that gender is performative is a little
different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways
that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman. I was walking down the street in Berkeley
when I first arrived several years ago and a young woman who was I think in high school
leaned out of her window and she yelled, “Are you a lesbian?”, and she was looking to harass
me or maybe she was just freaked out or she thought I looked like I probably was one or
wanted to know and I thought to myself well I could feel harassed or stigmatized, but
instead I just turned around and I said yes I am and that really shocked her. We act as if that being of a man or that being
of a women is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us,
a fact about us, but actually it’s a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced
all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from
the start.  I know it’s controversial, but that’s my claim. Think about how difficult it is for sissy
boys or how difficult it is for tomboys to function socially without being bullied or
without being teased or without sometimes suffering threats of violence or without their
parents intervening to say maybe you need a psychiatrist or why can’t you be normal. So there are institutional powers like psychiatric
normalization and there are informal kinds of practices like bullying which try to keep
us in our gendered place. I think there is a real question for me about
how such gender norms get established and policed and what the best way is to disrupt
them and to overcome the police function. It’s my view that gender is culturally formed,
but it’s also a domain of agency or freedom and that it is most important to resist the
violence that is imposed by ideal gender norms, especially against those who are gender different,
who are nonconforming in their gender presentation.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. She can only speak reliably for herself in this instance. She does not inhabit a male body, so need not attempt to create belief that males are 'performing their gender' or however she wants to put it. Conversely, although she inhabits a female body, she has chosen to act more masculine so need not create belief that other women are acting. Judith Butler is the only one 'acting' here. And the only one she can legitimately speak about. She is clearly acting as a lesbian. A male who 'acts masculine' and a female who 'acts feminine' are quite possibly being true to their gender. Ms. Butler is not. That's OK, I am not saying that's a problem. I have similar feelings/thoughts about the many males who speak for women, which is more common. And am reminded of the feminist who said her next book was going to be about how it feels to get kicked in the balls.

  2. Of course gender is performed, it lies within the definition of the word 'gender'. Gender is the social sex, the social surface of biology. Most people have no problems with their gender being correlated with their biological sex. But, since the brain also is biology it may be complicated sometimes because a brain may be of a different sex than the body that contains it. That's why people sometimes have difficulties with sex and gender. On the other hand, sometimes people have fun with sex and gender. Luckily we live in a culture that has come a long way in accepting people as they are instead of trowing them from the roof of a building. I don't think JB is controversial at all, I just think she looks funny.

  3. This woman is seriously deluded. A woman who wants to be a bloke, looks like a bloke and acts like a bloke but guess what, she isn't. SHE must be very disjointed…er I mean disappointed

  4. She's a critical gender theorist. Critical theories are just normative bullshitting. They even try to "criticize" and apply value judgments to scientific method itself, when it doesn't support their little "theories".

  5. What?? Julie?? What's wrong with "her"? She's definitely a man. A woman that is a man or vice versa. What chromosomes does "she" have? Bet it is not xx, rather a combination with xy. Someone with a third sex.

  6. Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature. She's obviously in the wrong faculty. To be transferred to the Gender faculty!

  7. Gender role playing. LIke we chose to deliberately act man or woman. Well I'm not putting on a role as a woman. I am one. Obviously cannot suddenly decide am gonna act a role as a man. If I began to roleplay woman it would seem cartoonish and exaggerated and not authentic. Theatrical.

  8. Speak and talk — most men's voices are deeper women's tend to be a bit higher pitched. That's how our voice apparatus is constructed, not how we "choose" to speak.

  9. "Nobody a gender from the start". Well that's how she explain her own dubious gender. Does not apply to common people.But she pretends it does.

  10. So being a “man” or being a “woman” is always “gender role playing” yet being a lesbian or being gay or bisexual is not, or never role playing??

  11. Judith Butler is a man, a castrate. It's their religion, it's kabbalah. And they want to brainwash us into their belief. Transpocalypse now!

  12. People need to understand that you have a biological gender, or sex, and a expressed (performed) gender. The expressed gender is arguably 'forced' on you from the moment your parents learn your sex. If your parents are expecting a girl then society norms expect you to be a certain way, the "normalized" picture of the way a girl (or boy) should behave, what colors they should like, what toys and so on. When these experiences are pushed on you then you adapt to them, you get imprinted by them and you start to go into the stereotypes that society expect you to do. If you don't then you're seen as a 'weirdo' and are open for harassment and ridicule, we know it's not right to do so and yet it happens.
    What Judith tries to put out into the world isn't that girls dislike pink dolls, or that boys dislike blue trucks. Stereotypes are there for a reason, that said the developing child and adult shouldn't be put into a box called "man" or "woman" which are the social constructs. It's these boxes that cause conflicts and act like barriers for a lot of individuals who might've grown into a completely different person (for better or worse) if they didn't have to face and be challenged by these boxes that try to tell them what they are.
    Does that mean that women who are "untraditional" should be treated like men? No. Treated like women? No. That's the entire thing Judith is arguing against. People should be treated as people, without there being expectations from society on how they should behave and how they should be interacted with.

  13. "We act as if that being of a man or that being of a woman is actually an internal reality or something that's simply true about us, a fact about us." That's because it is.

  14. Butler thinks she can go against science. She has no idea what she's dealing with. It is the most successful intelectual endeavor in history.

    She says her claim is controversial. It is not. It may be controversial outside of science, in the departments of literature where queer theory is taught. In science they do not care about what she says, and I blame the scientists for allowing her to talk about these things without being contested. Butler should be exposed because people who make public policies may be listening to what she says.

  15. Who granted to this woman all those academic titles? She is completely out of mind. She's looking at human being like on some kind of machine or object. With all respect her philosophy what I heard so far is mad human being destructive.

  16. part of it makes sense. part of it is ridiculous. sociocentric and a-biological ignorance is another ideological position that narrows rather than enlighten. there are limits to 'performativity'. Can you desconstruct ageing? or a flu?

  17. What the hell is the difference between what she's saying and individuality?
    I mean why change the understanding of the word gender.
    Everything she's describing is already covered by the concept of the individual.
    What a confusing mess.

  18. It seems that most of the comments already got confused at the first step of differentiating sex and gender. Which I guess is understandable because 3 min is too little to explain her theory fully.
    To make it more understandable I will try to make a resume of my understanding of her theory, sorry for my english.

    First of all one should give a look into two concepts of Saussure…
    one, that no matter what we do we are always thinking within a system. For example, we cant imagine a new colour without distancing ourselves from all the other colours first, that means that we are not assuming a position outside of the "system of colours", we are still within the system. So, every type of "protest/alternative thinking" only finds meaning because of the conscious contrast and meaning of the other parts of the system.
    two, the triangle of reference….which means that when we see an object we perceive it as a whole but one needs to make oneself clear that there are different processes going on here:
    (1) the physical existence of the object.(2) the name we give to it.
    (3) the meanings and assumptions that we related to it.

    so, for example, "chair" …chairs exist outside of language, the physical existence of what we call them has its own reason of existence in which the chair doesnt care what humans think of it, it just exists (1) . Then there is the name, in this example "chair" , language is a system of symbols, so we need expressions to refer to things (2). And then there are all those assumptions we relate to "chair" , that can be our knowledge about its potential materials that its made of, or also the knowledge that we use it to sit, that it can be usually found in dining rooms and so on,
    many many things.
    So, Judith Butler makes use of the thought line in which we need to be aware of (1) , the human physical body, (2) the name we give to divide its genitalia = "sex" and (3) gender as all the ideology and assumptions we relate to it.

    One should also take into consideration the concepts of Pierre Bordieu of
    Habitus and Praxis, in which Habitus is like the knowledge we got "programmed" with since we were little, and Praxis daily actions we do to replicate such "Program"…that can mean a lot of things, and its divided into many different categories and environments, for example food taste, based on what type of food habits your family had you are likely to replicate those in your further life and with your children, it is not a must obviously but life is full of those details. It also includes table manners, religion, or basic things like how to use a phone, how to react when we face stress, the way we express love or perceive love and so on. All that can be highly personal and individual but also goes further, it is a part on how society divides into poor and rich, or intelectual or not, or also how we create our perception of "foreigners" "nationalism" and also things like racism or sexism. We are born into a structure and based on how we are molded by that structure we then later replicate it with Praxis. Because a society is an alive thing that has the ability to adapt. We tend to think that society is something big and powerful and often ignore that its made of individuals like you and me. Also our identity tends to be formed based on differences…so, the white racist does discriminate against black people for example, not because of those persons inferiority but because of his attempt to try to establish him/herself as superior, so, by telling ourselves that "I am not x" one establishes that "I belong to this other category = I am this" (Stuart Hall)

    And then there is also Michel Focault with his Discourse. For him power is not a matter of hierarchy…instead its that what those complex social systems produce constantly in interaction to each other. So, power is omnipresent and not understandable directed by an individual. It also means that we are all below it. For example one might say that a president is above power because he owns it, but he was too below the structure of power that forced him to adapt to the "rules" of elections, or that he is below the social rules for a president of being for example extrovert (usually), or that he is expected to be smart and have good table manners, to be an excellent public speaker and so on…That whole combination of rules and concepts has many divisions and segments in which one reaction causes another one and so on. They are like chains of Discourse in which they give meaning to each other.
    And those Discourses do not follow some sort of strict Superior logic, they vary based on culture and also based on time. Different factors create different reactions and a society adapts to those changes of costums. One just needs to be aware how deep that goes, even things like for example punctuality, some cultures pay more attention to it than others. But that is also based on a combination of many small factors and one of them is a different individual/ cultural understanding of time that varies. That also leads to body perception…there were times in which being overweight was considered to be a sign of Beauty, tattoos and their social acceptance also vary. Based on how the outside demands are put on us by society we have a different perception of everything. And institutions for example create the effect of believing that the way we think is objective, that there is some sort of thought line that exists outside of subjective perception.

    So, now we come to Judith Butler…she is aware of all those and a lot more. She thinks based that, that when we think about gender (which is NOT the same as sex) we talk as if the body was like a chair in which whether it rains or snows the object does not get affected…But that is not true. Because there is not such thing as a human form before the formation of body, like, we cant freeze our brains. Because one essential side of human beings is their capacity to learn, to create an Habitus and we are what we learned to think.
    Based on that gender is a type of Habitus and we perform it daily and through that we create our identity through differentiating ourselves from each other by trying to create stereotypes or social rules that fit within that whole Discourse complex in which we live in.

    Now, gender is Performance and a social construct…again, we are not talking about sex here, and as we live within a system in which we cant fully escape it one might say that, sex is gender because as we are all anyway formed and created around it since we are born, it might be artificial but its still valid because its part of what we are or turned our minds into.
    And yes, that is true to some extent but our identity is based on many things more than that…the way of being "male/female" in one culture differs to the way of being "male/female" in another culture, your age also plays a factor, your grandmother has a different concept of "woman/man" than you do. Whether you are born as rich or poor, your skin colour also marks somehow how you are perceived by society and therefore how you perceive yourself, it marks your life and your identity.
    A person from the opposite sex than you who was born in the same social environment as you, who looks similar to you, same religion, Ideology and so on is more similar to you, your way of talking and everything than someone from your same sex who was born in another position of a social structure.
    So, we are born in a body and then turned into what we are through many many factors and sex is only one of them, a minimal fragment in a combination of thousands of details that we are constituted of.

    But for some reason we keep talking and thinking as if that one difference defines everything we are. We have incorporated in our mind that there are two type of subjects, male and female, and that everything else are atributes, like race, social class, hobbies, nationality and so on.
    Butler tries to bring up the concept about that we should perceive sex as an atribute as well, That there is only one human subject with many different atributes and not some sort of core that depends on your sex.
    Based on that we also wouldnt try to discriminate people for not fitting into their "gender" standard for example.
    More liberty to try to understand ourselves as complex creatures and not a mix of boxes.

    I am just a cultural anthropology student and we didnt study this subject thaaat well either so I am sorry if I mixed up some of the details around the terms or intentions of the respective philosophers.

  19. If gender is so plastic, why does Judith Butler project the binary opposite her sex? She appears sartorially and behaviorally a caricature of a heterosexual male.

  20. straight male here. i got bored of performing maleness. it's boringly restrictive. i take what i like now. it's better.

  21. I love a woman who has feminine qualities. there is something divine and attractive about it. I wouldn't expect you to understand. you are really a turn of miss buttler.

  22. Judith Butler has worked really hard to erase women's identity, social protections, and safety in the public sphere by making it possible for men to claim they are women and thereby to transgress their traditionally protected spaces.

  23. Heterosexuality has to be a norm for the spieces to procreate. Especially in dark times. The only reason we question heterosexuality is because we aren't needed to procreate in modern times so more time lies in experimenting.

  24. some of yall are so dumb, she's talking about gender, not sex, gender is a powerful social construct to police how we should behave, there are obvious biological differences between females and males, that's not what she is talking about

  25. Because we are a "subject of gaze" (foucault), we began do the process of gender performative (Butler) which is an effect of Foucault's theory. We form a different identity because we know we are being watched. For example, We have to wear a dress because ur society tells us that girls should wear a dress. This is mostly concerned an intersex person because if she grew up to be a female member and yet deep inside she knows and feels that she is a male, she is forced to act like a woman because thats how people look at her growing up. She has to conform on what people think of her.

  26. Yall genter theorists miss one important point: is gender performativity AUTHENTIC and SELF-REFERENTIAL, or it is not. In other words, is someone performing their gender role because it is what they ARE, or they perform this gender role to FEEL being what they perform. Both may appear the same, but mechanisms behind that are different. Many folks tend not to get this this about authenticity at all, and assume that everything is just an act.

  27. Having been brainwashed by a heteronormative society, we grew up thinking that people are limited to parts of their bodies and to functions ascribed to them by this corrupting and corrupted society. I thank the likes of Butler who continue to educate people about this serious issue of "othering" which hides behind the veil of conservativity.

  28. yes, humans often plays roles of being male or female, but they may also play gay roles of being affected males or females. We also play roles of being obedient or threatening…many forms we have to play to get what we want or to survive. MOST species play roles of some sort. But, please don't ask me to call a male a female or vice versa. if you fooled me, that is fine -as long as I'm not about to sleep with you. but, please don't ask me to lie or fake reality. Reality is confusing and exhausting enough

  29. 'Queer Theory' is a combination of recycled neo-Marxist critical theory and French postmodernism. It initially came from university humanities departments. It has no scientific foundation whatsoever.

    The wide majority of evolutionary scientists agrees that normative gender roles and representations are largely correlated to biological sex – while giving a generous nod to the reality that these roles are also developed to a degree within a social context. In other words it's BOTH, but weighs strongly to the biological side.

    I'd rather go with the people who are at least TRYING to back their hypotheses up with data and empirical research, than with the people who are purely making shit up as they go along.

    Like Judith Butler.

  30. Meaning gender is nothing else than personnality. Gender is nothing but patriarchal bullshit. And Butler and queers validate patriarchy.

  31. Ummm guys these are theories relax and this is a interesting thought because this is like saying alright kids lets play pretend and some people do, because that’s how as a civilization we interpret these genders. And people are afraid of acting like a girl or boy and they make it up in clothing or their personality or even how they socially interact or some pretend.

    People deny it and say no that is bullshit and we know it but this has happened in at least more than 10 people. It’s like a gay person starting a family with a women saying they are suppose to love her, when they don’t. Same goes with other relationships where they fake till they make it.

    Male is suppose to be the bread winner, as the women is there for the man. Now that’s is bullshit because women have done way more. They have supported and conquered things in many ways but we just don’t see them.

    So the question in my mind is, Why when a women does something people gasp and are impressed as compared to a male where it’s expected?

    Just small thoughts 🙂 have a good day everyone 😋👌🏻

  32. It's nice to think that non-heterosexuals get bullied. That's pretty to think, but here where I live, the opposite is the case. I've been harassed, yelled at, almost assaulted because I look like a heterosexual and don't smile at, bother with, or pay attention to the gender-revolutionists. Frankly, I don't much care what they do as long as they keep their good manners and a modicum of civility. However, they aren't moderate.Their victimhood of the gender- and other believers in the huge importance of "inclusivity" makes many of them all too overly sensitive and quick to attack. I'm sick of it. Go about your gender affairs; to me they're quite unimportant in the big picture. The American public has its eyes always focused by the t.v. and internation neo-liberal politics always on minority issues (the better to divide us), whereas the USA's most important and large problems have ittle to do with minorities at all but with the destruction of democracy, of unions, of family and personal life, of prosperity, indeed of all hope, by the corporate-owned and run national security state.

  33. Must be hard to be a woman exposed to high testosterone levels in the womb, resulting in a man in a womens body. If I had been that unfortunate, I would too come up with similar theories just to make my life more bearable.

  34. I’m a freshman studying philosophy & my professor is trying to shove these ideas on to us. Ffs 4 yrs of studying this kinda trash makes me wanna switch majors.

  35. Judith Butler should have been fired from UC Berkeley and possibly investigated by law enforcement because her idea of "queer theory" promotes outright criminal behavior against children (incest and pedophilia, as queer theory says there should be no appropriate boundaries between the sexes or generations). I have no use for somebody who has twisted the English language inside out so that words have no meaning in order to justify predation and crimes against women and children. "Gender studies" needs to be gone from academia. WOMEN'S studies needs to return. No more should aberrant sexual practices and criminal behavior be taught or that LIES that men and women aren't material realities that are given labels be given any kind of forum. Flat earth thinking and creationism are not taught in academia-neither should queer theory.

  36. "Gender"–sex roles, NOT sex–PRESCRIBES behavior based on one's sex. It isn't the other way around. There are only two types of sex roles–masculinity and femininity, not 50, not 100, not 1,000. Just two because there are only two sexes. It isn't an identity, it isn't anything but a bunch of b.s. straitjacketing of men and women to act a certain way. Not hard to understand, though Butler comes up with her twisted notions of what "gender" is.

  37. Just by people's reactions to such theories you can see how important they are, and how deep they touch people's values. I once read that gender studies are one of the most revolutionary philosophies of our current times and I couldn't agree more. It hits a lot of people right in the stomach (in a good way).

  38. “Nobody is really gender from first time” YES because genders don’t mean SHXT..! Human species are distinguished by two sexes: female and male. And social fixation of each sexed bodies’ common traits are gender which is the same as gender stereotypes. What? If you act feminine then your “gender” is female? How any more sexist this claim can be?

  39. I find Butler interesting, especially because her ontology is orthogonal to mine. On a metaphysical level, I have difficulty understanding and consolidating her claims that (i) gender is contingent on whatever it is that makes us perform certain acts in public and is therefore not a strictly demarcated category (it is "fluid") and (ii) that the content of a gender category, whatever it happens to be (the content of a gender category is, after all, subject to change), necessitates how the public performance of certain acts are brought about. Both (i) and (ii) cannot be true at the same time. It is incoherent to claim that gender is both fluid (which implies that the boundaries of gender categories are blurred) while maintaining a causal necessity between the content of a gender category and one's public performance of certain acts (which implies that there is a gender category, i.e. the category that both necessitates public performance of gender X, Y, Z, etc. and the recognition of said public performance qua gender category X, Y, Z, etc.).

    The difficulties that reside in Butler's philosophy of gender are similar to the difficulties that pertain to Plato's World of Forms. In Eutyphro the "Problem of Participation" is anticipated when Plato's Socrates asks whether something is pious because it is loved by the Gods, or whether the pious is loved by the Gods because it is pious. The same question can be rephrased as follows: is the act performed because of the content of the gender category or does the gender category obtain its content because of the act that is performed? On the assumption that we are not dealing with a false dilemma, if the former is true, then the category indeed is universal which implies that its ontological relevance is prior to and constitutive of the performance of gender; if the latter is true the category is contingent on the gender roles that are performed and the ontological relevance of a gender category is posterior to the de facto performance of the gender role. The problem should be evident: if the former is true, then gender realism is true. For Butler this is a problem, because the claim that "we are born genderless" is in that sense clearly false. Whereas the number of combinatorial possibilities of behavioural acts that form the content of each gender category is infinite, the number of gender categories is finite, precisely because the number of subjects is countably finite and the number of acts that can be performed by each subject is finite. That is to say, every subject has to act in the world (even not acting, whatever that may mean, is an act – all subjects are forced to act in this world) and hence the set of behavioural characteristics of a subject necessarily conforms to a readily existing gender category, irregardless of whether the gender category at place x and time t is recognized by all subjects in place x at time t. That is the claim of gender realism, and if true, Butler's claim that we are born genderless is false per absurdum

    On the other hand, if the latter is true, then gender anti-realism is true. What that means is that there are (I) no gender categories that are ontologically prior to the performance of gender, i.e., there are no universal gender categories that are independent of a subject's performance, but are connected to the particular location and time in which the subject performs the act of gender or (II) that there are no gender categories at all. If both (I) and (II) are true, then it makes the claim that we are born genderless true; on the flip-side, if both (I) and (II) are true, then Butler's claim that there are gender norms cannot be ontologically grounded. To make matters concrete: if behavioural pattern that is conducive to the gender role "female", and this norm, as Butler says, is "forced" upon a subject, then Butler must face two objections. The first pertains to the question what it is that is enforced. If gender is not an a priori category but the result of the performative act of a subject and is therefore in the strictest sense relative to the performance of the subject (the subject "literally" creates a gender category by acting in a way that does not conform to existing categories (this again begs the question: what are these supposed pre-existing categories if gender categories are ontologically posterior to performative acts? And if there are no such categories, then what does it mean to say that one acts according to one's self-ascribed gender category?)), then the claim that one can self-identify with any pre-existing gender category is a contradiction in terms (for there are no such categories if gender anti-realism is true), whereas nobody can be said to perform a gender role if there is no such thing.

    A second, much more pressing implication, is that all contemporary self-identifications are incoherent, and, moreover, that Butler's attempt to reject the categories "male" and "female" is wholly vacuous – for what is it that is removed if it does not exist in the strictest sense, and what does the performance of gender create if it cannot be "gender"? If what is rejected are pre-existing gender norms, while simultaneously maintaining that gender does not, in the strictest sense, exist a priori, then Butler must account for the ontological status of those categories without referring to universal categories "male" and "female" as the gender realist does. What provides content to those categories if they are socially constructed? If those categories are strictly arbitrary, then what is it that made them survive for such a grand period of history? Moreover, if they are strictly arbitrary, in what sense is their ontological status shared with, say, the wholly arbitrary categorization of people in terms of their hair colour? Or, to put it more absurdly, in what sense does the categorization male/female share the same ontological status with the arbitrary classification of people who are and those who are not 4 meters tall? Now obviously nobody is 4 meters tall, but that is precisely the point: why is it that in the latter case the "4 meters tall" category is empty, but the "under 4 meter" category, the "male" category and the "red haired" category are not? What is it that provides content to those categories? If there is no such thing as a gender category, then the ontological referents of the terms "male", "female" and "intersex" can only refer to biological sex. However, Butler rejects the existence of such categories as well, which immediately reiterates the question what the content of the categories "male" and "female" is, even though they are as Butler says "socially constructed". In other words: one may categorize the world in an infinite number of ways, but it is a priori evident that not all categories have equal ontological status: some categorizations are more valid than others. If so, then what makes some categories more valid than others?

  40. I think it's pretty crazy to see how just a few years ago, this pretty evident and well-understood observation about how our identities are constructed and how we inhabit our genders was considered so radical and unthinkable. I see people in this comment section and rather than disagreeing for any argumentative or evidenced reasons, it's just people in shock that someone is even philosophizing about gender identity like this. I don't mean to call these people bigots or anything, but their initial shock and seeming refusal to understand this concept without giving a reason shows a lot about the magnetic nature of the status-quo.

  41. Gender is physical and chemical. You can be a gender spectrum in your life and personality and you can do what you want if it doesn't harm others. Other wise it nullified trans people. Fact is fact. Atoms are just atoms. It's people who give it meaning.

  42. Thanks for the reset of the last sixty years in women's rights. Now elderly women and lesbians who had to fight for their own bars, marriages and *actual safe spaces*, now have to start over because of your Ayn Rand-esque pseudo-philosophy.

  43. I think my Hospital Physician Girlfriend put it best when she once said, "Feminists are like hideous black spiders that dwell in their little hidey-holes, and when a bright shining light of truth and wisdom like Dr. Jordon Peterson walks by, they slither back into their black holes and hiss away with pure fury and bigotry."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *