Margaret Atwood stanning how sex doesn't really matter

submitted by WrongToy from self.GenderCritical

https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280262917506641922

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Spikygrasspod 36 insightful - 13 fun36 insightful - 12 fun37 insightful - 13 fun -  (2 children)

The Scientific American article says "New evidence suggests that the brain consists of a “mosaic” of cell types, some more yin, others further along the yang scale."

Ah yes, the science of yin and yang cells.

[–]WrongToy[S] 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

She is confusing ovatesticular disorder (an intersex disorder) with being trans. Yes I did a deep dive into what used to be called "true hermaphrodites" and came up with one case in the medical literature of someone who was a genetic chimera and who had a baby. Because they were a chimera.

That's like 1 in 7 billion odds that don't reflect whatever percentage of totally physiologically normal people who are identifying for a social reason.

[–]Spikygrasspod 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very interesting. And there's microchimerism. Which is also very interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that there are two natural kinds (with some exceptions) and that we can tell each other apart well enough to create a society that places roughly half of us under systematic threat of domination by the other half, other axes of oppression and domination notwithstanding.

This whole distraction annoys me so much because sex based oppression definitely won't go away if we let deconstructionists murder the words and concepts that describe it...

[–][deleted] 30 insightful - 2 fun30 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The ultimate irony of The Handmaid's Tale author becoming the handmaiden... The fact that some humans have six fingers on each hand does not mean that normally, humans are 12 or 11 fingered creatures. No one is denying that it can exist in nature. Just because some rare instances exist in nature does not mean these are common or universal to the human experience, so why should we act like they are? To be inclusive to the non-10 fingers people, we should stop saying that humans have 10 fingers. /s And besides, trans=/= intersex. Transwomen are plain old biologically male no matter how much they wish otherwise.

[–]rusalka 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It’s so disappointing to see this from her considering how integral sex-based oppression is to many of her books. Patriarchy is built upon controlling female reproductive capability. Nature always leaves room for shades of grey in anything, but invalidating the female experience with these minor exceptions is dangerous to our movement.

[–]MezozoicGay 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look, there 1 in 7 billions like that, this means we can justify oppression of 3.5 billions!

[–]meranii 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm pretty sure even mentioning "sex-based oppression" will be like a bannable word and a big NO-NO in a few months with the way things are going. I've already read on two or three different forums that "biological woman" is apparently hateful language.

How will great feminist literature even continue to be released at all if you can't make sex-based oppression and the reality of it a topic?

[–]rusalka 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

From what I’ve seen, TRAs haven’t allowed terms like biological/natal women and sex-based oppression in years. We would need a constantly updated book of their Newspeak terms in order to keep up. I think it’s important to keep using them, though. I always make a point of using “sex” and never “gender” in all my real life conversations. The average person won't be offended, and it's important to keep our language alive. Unlike TRA terms, ours are clear and definable.

[–]meranii 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, I had seen some pushback against "biological woman" a few years ago, but it was usually phrased like "oh, it would be be better if you said 'cis", or "maybe this would make a trans person feel bad, boohoo", with the majority of people in those conversations not seeing anything wrong with factual phrasing.

Now a mob will go straight to calling you hateful, a transphobe, TERF, "piss off", you'll get banned for even mentioning the reality of how you were born and that oppression is not something we can opt into or out of. We don't get validation when grown men recognize our bodies as female when we're just 11 or 12 years old and they harass us accordingly.

It's really amazing to me how effective the strategy was to start with something reasonable like "you can't change your sex but you can change gender because like feminists say, it's just a social construct!", then it morphs into "actually I've always known I was a woman and that I was really born with a ladybrain, it's science", and within 10 years demanding exclusively the complete opposite of their starting point: "Gender is the only thing that's important and sex is unmentionable because it discriminates against transpeople!".

Seriously, ten years ago I was going around telling people not to use words like "tr*nny" because it's mean (that word was still everywhere online), consoling trans people who said they were being hated on (and they often were), but now I've become the enemy? When I've never had anything but empathy and just don't want to roll back decades of tenuous progress and protections for women?

[–]Moonkittie 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is very disappointing. I was hoping from someone who wrote about women oppression, about patriarchal society, about women being denied basic rights only because they're female and other women used as incubators to actually see what is happening and stand by our side. Meh. Kinda wish JK Rowling wrote those books now.

[–]MezozoicGay 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I suppose she want to still be trending. Or maybe she is not really understanding the situation.

[–]Moonkittie 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the latter, even though its wierd for someone like her not to understand how they're eraising female and woman meanings. Maybe she's being politically correct? Maybe she doesn't want to be dragged down to those arguments for the sake of her work? She hasn't actually spoken up on the issue, just made a comment. All I know is that I'm deeply disappointed, I was waiting for her to say something and now I regret it.

[–]PassionateIntensity 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh please. Bullshit she knows is fucking bullshit to be nice! Margaret, I expected better out of you. For fuck's sake this nonsense contradicts your entire literary oeuvre!

[–][deleted] 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jane Clare Jones wrote some great responses to Atwood's tweets, and Atwood was actually responding in good faith, not "cancelling" her. Yeah I agree this is a bummer, but mainly a bummer because I don't think Atwood has kept up with feminist politics at all. She was way out of her depth in the conversation with JCJ and it seems like she posted what she did because she's at the point where she just trusts the current "woke" consensus without thinking critically. That wouldn't have been a bad idea in the 80s, but it's disastrous now.

Edit: Of course considering the fact she's got a tv show going on right now, maybe it's calculated ignorance on her part. In that case the fact she engaged with JCJ without using the t-word and then she still acknowledged JCJ might be right would speak volumes...

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

LOL. But look at this fish and how it'sa hermaphrodite. It's not people at all, but I'm throwing off the goalpost to distract you from the fact that I've sold my soul! !

[–]MezozoicGay 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Wait until she discovers Anemonefish who can change sex at will... Or Starfish, who can cut their part and that part will become newborn child...

[–]peregrine_throw 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mmm... Margaret Atwood is 80 years old... I won't be surprised if she finds it hard to wrap her brain around this idiocy (it's already a struggle for us who are relatively younger as the ideology doesn't make sense to begin with) and is trying EXTRA HARD, maybe even with a TransSvengali nearby "educating" her (woke grandchildren, assistant or something).

Goodness, r/gc had a long-retired doctor (or psychiatrist? brain not functioning...) pop in to ask if schools are teaching sex isn't binary as newer curriculum, bewildered by what she was reading from TRAs lol what more for a layperson.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Did Atwood actually write the book? Every time she’s in the news about the handmaids tale she seems to hint she doesn’t understand what she wrote. Unlike JKRowling for example and other authors. Has she even read her own book.

[–]MezozoicGay 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

"The New Science of Sex and Gender"

Why this sounds as "The New Chronology of World History" by Fomenko? A book about history and how every single historian is wrong...and it is written by Mathematician, not by Historian. It makes absolutely different chronology, making people 1000 years ago using nuclear weapons that destroyed earth, and so on. Why just name of this article sounds absolutely the same? Almost like someone far from biology trying to apply some speculations on few photos they saw on ALL the biology. I wonder how many genders have frogs then, or lions.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's like an exhortation to "forget everything you know" which is precisely how cult brainwashing works.

[–]Penguinberri 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No :( the handmaid's tale literally changed my life and opened my eyes to sex based oppression when I was a teenager. The whole book is literally how women are beaten down by the patriarchy because of our physical ability to bare children (and it even covers childlessness and infertility in the story as well and those women are still impacted by men) urgh I'm so disappointed

[–]organic 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Did she not read her own book?...

[–]WrongToy[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting Tweet replies. One said, "So if Fred identifies tomorrow he and Serena are lesbians and now oppressed, is that Handmaid's Tale 2.0?"

[–]Killer_Danish 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Person on her Twitter feed: "Then how did the people in Gilead know which people to turn into handmaids?"

Another strike for Margaret "has-been" Atwood.