Woman wins women's prize

Not sure about it being "interesting" but the cynic in me wonders that on a list which is already quite heavy on women of colour and/or non Western European situations does this give the author something to differentiate themselves?

So in January 2018, this individual was both posing in a Gucci dress as one of two sisters, and writing an article about how 'It had been five years since I figured out I was transgender'.

How come the person who said 'My friends and family know I’m not a woman' wasn't up in arms about being misgendered in Vogue?

My cynical self wonders if this is just a way to identify ones self as a different writer, something interesting for others to write about

Not sure about it being "interesting" but the cynic in me wonders that on a list which is already quite heavy on women of colour and/or non Western European situations does this give the author something to differentiate themselves?

Anyway here they are. They are the one on the left wearing the Gucci dress.

www.vogue.com/article/families-changing-the-world-vogue-february-2018-issue

At the risk of setting off previous arguments again, there was a piece about this on Radio 4's Front Row last night. A journalist called Vic Parsons (who seems to be involved with The Pool...) did in fact criticise the prize committee for not thinking through a defined policy in advance and not being clear.

She also said that if they include one 'enby' person - she didn't use that word, to be fair - in a women's prize , logically they ought to include all. Which would mean 'assigned male at birth' people (she did say this - the M word wasn't uttered either by her or the interviewer).

She ended up by referring to the patriarchy and saying that there was still a need for women's prizes, as there was for best actress awards in the Oscars, for example.

It was quite an interesting listen. There was a lot of tiptoeing around, much use of woke terms, and some cheerleading for 'inclusiveness', but the overall message was more nuanced and critical than I'd expected, tbh.

My cynical self wonders if tgis is just a way to identify ones self as a different writer, something interesting for others to write about. Either that or being a woman is just an shit we all ought to identify our of it but we can't!!

You can get a free sample on Kindle. I thought it was pretentious, mannered and very boring.

I think we are probably saying pretty much the same thing.

I think so, too.

But I do think there is a risk with taking the mickey out of some men’s political ideas, whereas there isn’t that same with women in general (however they identify )

I've been quite cautious in my criticism of Akwaeke Emezi because from reading this article, Akwaeke comes across as quite naive and vulnerable.

“I didn’t think it would be this bad,” I managed to say.

The nurse gave us a brief but incredulous look. “You got an entire organ removed from your body,” she pointed out. “It’s kind of a major surgery.”

What sort of person would get a hysterectomy, not realising it was major surgery which would be painful and require extensive recovery time?

Akwaeke also appears to believe in superstitions involving demons and spirits, which are influencing Akwaeke's decisions.

I think people like this are victims of this ideology in much the same way as children are, unlike people like Jane Fae who I'm happy to criticise in quite a robust way.

Crone sorry I get you now- I think we are probably saying pretty much the same thing. I don’t think celebrity and far removed people like Jenner care too much if I were to take the mickey out of their politics online. Or least if they did they wouldn’t try to act punitively on it.

But I do think there is a risk with taking the mickey out of some men’s political ideas, whereas there isn’t that same with women in general (however they identify ) because we know (or assume) that natal women are less likely to doxx, harass, stalk, contact employers etc etc than men are likely to do, even if a man has then transitioned and now has a feminine persona.

Hold on though.. isn’t that kind of the point? We need single sex women’s literary prizes, spaces, opportunities, whatever- because women need them otherwise their needs or work are overlooked?

Yes. And it's why there couldn't be a similar situation where a man who identified as a woman decided he was actually still a man when he was nominated for a 'men only' prize, because such men-only prizes don't exist in the same way, because men don't need them.

The nearest equivalent would be Caitlyn Jenner deciding to be accepted as a man in order to remain a member of Caitlyn's men-only golf club. And I think there was plenty of piss-taking of Caitlyn over that on here.

But this sort of situation would be unlikely to arise for a man who declared he wasn't a man.

Hold on though.. isn’t that kind of the point? We need single sex women’s literary prizes, spaces, opportunities, whatever- because women need them otherwise their needs or work are overlooked?

Because prizes, spaces, opportunities whatever are routinely controlled by men and given to men? Whereas women are socialised to do the opposite and give way to men?

Also the reason that as women we might feel more inclined to self censor is that we get a massive pile on of MN reporting from female-identifying male people and also that GC women get threats if they say anything GC in public. From men.
I haven’t heard of ‘enby’ people (born female) doing that type of actual threatening to GC women but would be interested to hear about it if I have missed that.

I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand.

The author does not believe they are female, so why are they with being in the running for a prize that is only for female writers.

If she had been born a biological man, I suspect we would feel forced to censor ourselves a lot more.

I don't think that's true. But this sort of situation would be unlikely to arise for a man who declared he wasn't a man. As far as literary prizes go, some are for anyone, others are for women only, and I think there may be some for people like first-time authors or young novelists. As far as I know, there are none that are only for men.

Similarly for other areas - like all-women shortlists - there are no all-men shortlists (although some probably end up that way anyway).

And I don't think anyone censors themselves here when it comes to people like Philip/Pips Bunce. Quite the opposite.

While I wish this author well and hope they has found peace with their body, this author’s is being hypocritical in entering a national woman’s literary competition. But this example is clearly only a small part of a much wider and powerful political narrative around gender which is being taken very very seriously at the highest levels. This internalising of a political narrative based in sex stereotypes, means that women and girls (however they identity) are being forbidden to hold on to their safety, privacy and dignity.

So while this author and any woman can reclaim womanhood whenever they would like to have it back, it seems apparent that genderism absolutely stinks for women and girls- regardless of how they ‘identify’.

And I notice that we feel much freer to take the piss in relation to this author’s hypocrisy because in biological terms she is female.

If she had been born a biological man, I suspect we would feel forced to censor ourselves a lot more.

I wonder why that is?

I still think non-trans, binary would explain it all, if it could be explained, or if it were necessary to explain it. That’s how I feel, and I identify as far too invested in this pointless discussion.

If someone is a raving hypocrite, I'm going to criticise them for it. Are we clear? She is being criticised for her hypocrisy in claiming not to be a woman but accepting a nomination for a WOMEN's literature prize. She is of course eligible for the prize as an adult human female, when you leave aside the non binary twaddle. That is not the issue.

Is weetabix trying to be funny? Because the weetie posts are very entertaining.
The point is:

This author is a woman. Always was, always will be. Biological fact.

So the author is clearly eligible to enter a woman’s literature prize. Because of being a woman. Because of this biological fact.

But the author, while entering for the woman’s prize, is simultaneously denying being a woman. Denying the obvious biological fact that confers eligibility for entry into the competition!

So, the author’s views are inconsistent: on the one hand, claiming not to be a woman (denying biological reality), while on the other, claiming to be a woman (accepting biological reality) by putting self forward for a woman’s literature prize.

Some people think this inconsistency is cynical. I think this poor young person is probably just desperately mixed up, and has been encouraged by irresponsible people like the writer of the Guardian article.

I can’t believe the lack of ethics involved in removing a healthy uterus from a young person so clearly suffering from some kind of mental health issue. Not appreciating the pain involved in a hysterectomy...oh god. It is so sad to think that a beautiful and talented young person with so much life ahead of them would do this to their body.

True. If someone next to me said ‘my gender is xxx’ I could honestly say ‘I don’t give a rats hairy arse - it’s not a real thing anyway’.

As far as I can see, people talk about their gender identity, pronouns, gender fluidity, etc, to make themselves interesting to themselves and other people.
Newsflash: they are not. NOBODY CARES. Why even tell anyone what you identify as. NOBODY CARES.

"actual woman" enough in the way that they identify.

Sorry but this is just nonsense. I just said above, and I'll say it again:
how a person "identifies" is utterly irrelevant. They can "identify" as the Queen of Sheba for all I care -- they are free to do so.
This is a woman's prize and a woman won it. I don't understand, and I think that's what we are all saying, why there should be an article about her "identity", why it is relevant to the prize, why these writers are saying her gender is going to be a talking point.
It just isn't. Everything is fine. Shut up about your bloody gender: NOBODY CARES.

For crying out, no one thinks she isn't actually eligible for the award. She clearly is. Posters are, quite reasonably asking why someone who doesn't think they are a woman would be happy to accept an award for women when in other circumstances, the merest hint of wrongly designating someone's gender identity would cause personal catastrophies.

I appreciate the attempt to appear confused by our confusion, but as usual, you're pointing at shadows at pretending something is there when it's not. Have a nice evening.

The problem is that men who identify as 'women' get to win prizes and awards which are meant for actual women. They should stick to sex categories as they have done here.

Yet when they do exactly that criticism is heaped on them because one nominee isn't "actual woman" enough in the way that they identify.

She's a woman nominated for a woman's prize, as others have said. I don't know why her gender or lack of gender is a talking point. It's important to her, maybe, but to nobody else.

I agree. Everyone should be able to define their own gender. But this should never be confused with sex.

The problem is that men who identify as 'women' get to win prizes and awards which are meant for actual women. They should stick to sex categories as they have done here.

Just wanted to say that "gender non-fluidity", though in other words, has been a central part of Hindu philosophy for thousands of years. It is in fact the aim of Hindu vendantic spirituality, except that they call it non-dual instead of non-binary. And they don't make a huge deal of it. And it's not a talking point. And they accept their bodies as simply roles they have to play, and try to free themselves from the idea of gender and other identities, through meditation; a state of calmness and balance.
This person sounds very conflicted and troubled by comparison.
As for her gender-non-binary status -- why should it even be discussed in relation to the prize? She's a woman nominated for a woman's prize, as others have said. I don't know why her gender or lack of gender is a talking point. It's important to her, maybe, but to nobody else.

I thought their gender identity was neither male or female. I don't think that's the same as saying "not a woman"

Here you are Weetie

I wasn’t sure then what I was transitioning my body to, but I was clear that the gender I’d been raised as was inaccurate — I’d never been a woman.

My friends and family know I’m not a woman — I’ve told them — but some continue to think of me as one anyway.

www.thecut.com/2018/01/writer-and-artist-akwaeke-emezi-gender-transition-and-ogbanje.html

Why do you think the trans person in this case is abiding by the rule "biology matters, not feelings"? Whilst all the time insisting that they are not a woman?

I have no idea because I am not them. And are they saying that they are not a woman? I thought their gender identity was neither male or female. I don't think that's the same as saying "not a woman"