Ian McEwan on gender identity

I did after the Cologne Gaby Hinsliff piece. The crazy thing is that judging by the comments, the vast majority of their readership take a contrary stance to them on all these issues. The Guardian Pick of most comments is never something with a high number of "recommends". It's awful but kind of fascinating in a trainwreck kind of way.

Email the readers editor to say so

No, its relentless sucking up to misogynistic Islamists on one hand while airing the most frivolous feminism-lite in its columns on the other is pretty alienating and depressing.

The Guardian is not really a progressive publication when it comes to women

Ah, maybe I should write to the Guardian too, as I have also abandoned them for the Times. One gets old fashioned sexism now and then in the Times, but that is at least based in a sound understanding of biology (the source of woman's oppression). I am sad that McEwan felt obliged to take back some of his comments, though.

Bluebolt - 100%.

Bigkids - Yes, I'm a glutton for punishment really. I stopped reading after the Cologne debacle (another shocking example of a progressive publication crapping on women and their concerns) but drifted back. I've found the moderation on CIF quite crazy. Polite, reasonable, decently argued comments that don't fit their narrative getting zapped while personally abusive, nasty ones remain.

I am drafting a letter to the guardian telling them why I've abandoned them - after 20 years - for the times. Deleting gender critical, polite comments is dreadful.

I cannot get my head around the argument that trans women are vulnerable in men spaces but these same men who attack trans women can easily self identify (just by issuing the words "I am a woman") and enter women spaces is scaremongering.

I know, it's bonkers. Just the confirmation bias of the brainwashed.. oh this random person on the internet who says they're a biologist...yeah science!

I'm a biologist too. I did biology o-level.

And over 1000 comments and still nobody could explain what on earth 'as a biologist' meant when claiming that gender was a brain thing.

www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/06/biology-not-always-destiny-says-ian-mcewan-after-transgender-row

My comments were all zapped. That "as a biologist" bullshit comment which made Guardian Pick -surprise!- tries to make the case for ladybrain while airily dismissing concerns about shared bathrooms. I pointed out the legitimate discomfort and fear felt by women sharing their private space with biological men given the very real threat from predators and zap!

Changing the definition of woman also changes what it means to be a man and to be gay. Women might be noticing the effects first, but it's not just a woman's issue.

It's also an issue for anyone who cares about how government policies are made. There has been little consultation and no scientific basis or clear reasoning for making the proposed changes, yet Maria Miller appears to be ploughing on regardless.

What also scares me is how it sets one generation of women against another, younger feminists swallowing the movement and falling over themselves to prove how right on they are, whether they are right or not.

Divide and conquer.

...and we have to accept that we are the oppressors of people born male, and that they should be prioritised in women's spaces from now on.

Yeah, no.

Imagine trans black people started telling black people how to be black, with the full backing of progressives. Imagine that, why is it any different?

The only difference is that we are women and we have to budge up, make room, stop fussing.

It's not a battle of wills.

I am genuinely scared and worried, laws are being changed that effect me, my daughter and future generations of women, if we will still be allowed to use that title to define ourself. Trans Women will be allowed to compete with us in the Olympics, get changed next to us, tell us how to be a woman.

I'm not a feminist getting her knickers in a twist, I am very concerned about the future.

Pink, I think the 'ready to wear like a little black number' is actually a good way of summing up the co-opting, at a very superficial level, of being a woman. If womanhood can be externally created, then it is nothing more than a dress to choose. I don't think McEwan is diminishing women so much as the trans* movement.

I can't comment on the misogyny in his writing, I stopped reading Atonement when I realised it centred on rape (I think) and I was not at a strong enough emotional stage. But may re-visit. Nonetheless, it kind of makes sense that a misogynist would want women to be actual real and bodily women.

It seems like a battle of wills between feminists and trans activists

It's not really a battle of wills given that one group of people have decided to completely redefine a word without clarifying what they think that word means.

It's more a battle between logic and stamped feet.

Grimarse, the reason it appears 'niche' and not at the forefront of the public consciousness, is because it is happening under the radar. Yes, it is largely confined to lots of debate/articles/consciousness raising etc on the internet rather than a wider discussion, but that will change.

A white paper has been submitted to the Govt for consideration into law, which, if passed, will massively erase women's rights to safe spaces as they will, effectively, be opened up to everyone.

I'm not going to go into detail as it would be too derailing, (google Maria Miller and the Equality commision white paper if you want to read it) but it's the reason so many of us are extremely concerned.

Of course it's off the male radar in the main, because it simply doesn't affect them. Although if you have a wife/girlfriend/sister/mother/grandmother/aunt/neice/daughter, it will affect them so the radio silence from men is a bit disconcerting. Hence it is nice when high profile men like McEwan wade into the debate.

I am not a fan of Ian McEwan because his presentation of female characters is, as scallops said, misogynistic. This makes me cautious about suddenly cheering along with him as an ally on this issue. My sense of caution also stems from two things he says in the article. Firstly, he calls the conflict "interesting" (rather implying that he would agree with the poster who finds it a "niche" issue - almost beneath him), whereas an increasing number of women I know find this issue passionately infuriating. Secondly, the irony of his referring to gender identity as something that may be chosen like a "ready-to-wear little black number"! Because if you really want to make something sound superfluous and trivial then make sure you compare it to something associated with women and their shallow obsession with appearances!!

I'm not actually sure that those minority trans activists have the interests of the majority of trans people at heart either.

It's this very issue that has brought me to feminism and if the discussions on this and other sites as well as comment pages on the guardian for example are anything to go by I'm far from the only one.

It's definitely entering the mainstream. A lot of women are coming to realise that a certain vocal minority of trans activists do not have the interests of women at heart and in fact it's quite the opposite.