The Sunday Times - StrawMaid's Tale

It's not why I've posted it, as I said in my post that you've quoted. All I've tried to do with it is to deflect the accusation that feminists are 'just like right wing religious people' (or some other group that they try to compare us to through a misinterpretation of our concerns about trans ideology).

But if the description is kind of fudging the difference, than does it really show that?

I mean, to me, the statement that they are the same is just clearly wrong, and probably not honest, at least from someone over 20. Anyone can see that the two groups differ significantly on a number of issues, and there is no need to unpack the origins of those differences to show it.

As far as it goes, it's try that radfems and religious conservatives generally both see the body as real, and that accounts for a lot of their overlap on this. There are probably some other similarities around thinking about class groupings as well, as opposued to a liberal/individualist perspective.
But I don't think that characterisation of the difference, which you want to show, is something many conservatives would recognise, and presumably the people who are looking at the diagram could be aware of that. So it doesn't especially show them that there is a difference, that is what is most likely to be in dispute. The response could easily be "That's not really a conservative position, so what is this difference you are saying this shows?

But I have found the comments about it that you and others on this thread have made are informative, since they have shown me how the message I thought the diagram was putting across quite clearly and succinctly can be totally misunderstood.

I think it's quite clear, and useful.

Most mainstream people in the modern world agree that wearing pants, working, and having a voice in the community are perfectly acceptable for women, indeed there's few who'd even think to question it, unlike 60 years ago. That just goes to show how culturally mutable concepts of 'gender' are, but it doesnt mean concepts of gender have disappeared

It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis. As others have already said, it's supposed to be a simplification. I've posted it in the past as a rebuttal to those who say that feminists are no different from right wing religious people which is a lazy and incorrect over simplification. The whole point of it is to say: 'it's more complicated than that' as a starting point about where the differences and similarities between the groups lie.

It's a little misleading is the issue. I know what they mean when they say that conservatives believe in gender stereotypes. Even if we totally ignore the libertarian types of conservatives though, that's not particularly true.

People post that diagram trying to show where radical feminists and conservatives supposedly overlap (or not), but I don't think you really get a good sense of that from the diagram.

The very religious American conservatives - the fundamentalists, who are not a small factor in American politics - are gender=sex essentialists. Pretending they're not is as silly as left-leaning people insisting that the Wokes don't exist.

Even fundamentalists or conservative American Christians covers a pretty wide group of people. The one who think all the "gender stereotypes" are somehow intrinsic and ought to be followed are a minority even there. People like the Duggers who had that crazy tv show fall into that group - but they are sects.

It's true that many religious conservatives of that type would argue that more things are intrinsic behaviours attached to sex than many radical feminists think are. But the limits of that aren't even agreed upon by feminists. And they might also argue that certain social structures around family life are useful, or natural, or socially stabilising. But again, those are points argued even among feminists. It's not so clearly a matter of a totally different perspective some much as a question of where you draw the line, or what you see as useful.

There are quite a lot of conservative evangelical Christian women who wear pants, earn a good living in a significant job, and consider themselves important voices within their communities.

"One of you?" That damned mob with their Venn diagrams. You must hate people with MBAs

What on earth are you on about? Seriously are you throwing a tantrum because I didn't name who made that point that conservative covers a broad range , which was presumably made by you? Good grief.

The very religious American conservatives - the fundamentalists, who are not a small factor in American politics - are gender=sex essentialists.

Well said - it's this group of conservatives that has strict stereotypes of what is a woman and is very homophobic (campaigning against marriage equality). I have hopes the left will be more open to listen to women's shelters, LBG Alliance and Save Women's Sports.

So it would be just as easy (and wrong) to say that believers in trans ideology are no different from religious conservatives

So why not say "religious conservatives"?

Conservative as one of you has already pointed out is a very broad category.

As HecatesCats points out, religious people are sometimes on board with trans ideology because of their homophobia and/or belief in gender stereotypes. (I'm not saying that all religious people are homophobic, but there's no doubt that some are.) So it would be just as easy (and wrong) to say that believers in trans ideology are no different from religious conservatives.

'Cleverer and open-minded'? Once again I think you're misinterpreting the arguments on here. I'm certainly not trying to be 'clever', but I do believe that feminists debating on here are the most open-minded of those three groups, because we are looking for evidence and making an effort to understand why people think differently. The 'no debate' proponents of trans ideology don't appear to do any of this, nor do some conservative/religious groups with their narrow minded beliefs - something else that those groups have in common.

Where does simplification fit into this as opposed to oversimplification?

Oversimplification of complex issues into easily shared social media images is exactly what has lead to the tribalism that is now blighting society.

Hooting at the idea that a diagram is "shallow", the purpose of it in the first instance is to simplify things not give an in depth analysis or be perfect in that analysis to cover all nuances.

As to anyone thinking they are "clever" and more "open minded" for posting it

Conservative" covers quite a range of views these days

By your own post the "conservative" sector of the Venn diagram might just as well be called "people who disagree with feminists "

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in the British Conservative Party

The very religious American conservatives - the fundamentalists, who are not a small factor in American politics - are gender=sex essentialists. Pretending they're not is as silly as left-leaning people insisting that the Wokes don't exist.

Goosefoot

I actually think the whole "conservatives believe gender is innate" thing is a little shallow. So while that diagram maybe has some use, it's limited. The overlaps or shared values are a little more complex

I think it's extremely shallow. I don't think the diagram does much beyond radical feminists giving themselves a pat on the back that they are so much cleverer and open- minded than the other 2 sectors.

I actually think the whole "conservatives believe gender is innate" thing is a little shallow. So while that diagram maybe has some use, it's limited. The overlaps or shared values are a little more complex.

Singasonga I don't disagree at all that liberal Canadians in many ways are responding to what they think is going on in the US. My point though, from that perspective, is that they still have no serious understanding of the issues or even what the arguments are. I would agree that rural Canada, particularly in parts of the west, resents that. I don't know that many see gender ideology as very relevant in their lives though, and someone like Atwood would not have much interaction with people like that.

The telling a story with a straight face thing is very much part of my cultural experience, I'm on the east coast, though not in Newfoundland, so maybe that's really where it's a thing.

I do think that UK conservatives and US conservatives are quite different and in the US at least, aligning w/ any US conservative means you've just lost your audience of left-leaning openminded people you could possibly convince that women's rights are at risk with trans ideology. There is pretty severe partisanship over here. While I'm pro-choice, I personally argued that the Women's March should allow the pro-life feminist group to march (weren't they women and what a great place for them to meet other feminists??!?), but that was shut down fast. I'm just being realistic.

Love all the insight into Canadian feminism @Singasonga!!

Also, please stop talking about gender critical feminists aligning with the right.

There have been occassions when to get a public platform feminists have shared a platform with people / groups whose thinking they dont share but felt the issue of protecting young women from being pushed down the path of transing was important enough, that to have the platform was the priority.

And all those taking this moral high ground, dont forget we are all reduced to reading right wing papers in the UK because the liberal left papers will not give gender critical voices a platform. If it wasn't for some quite horrible right wing papers publishing the stories of detransitioning it would not be in the public domain in the way that it is.

Many women on the left who put their purity male party politics above everything, have in fact demonstrated that in making their "bros" their priority they stand back and do not for instance publicly support groups of mothers trying to save their daughters. In other words to preserve their (male) political purity they are happy to abandon women to the trans thuggery.

I am wondering if Atwood a bit like Doris Lessing doesn't like being classified as a feminist because they both see / saw themselves as sort of unique individuals, so resent it being suggested others have had the same ideas.

And also of course feminism gets such a trashing in the media that to protect their "brand" of being unique and not part of some hideous band of harpies they have / did make statements that clearly differentiate themselves from (radical feminism).

repeating that abstraction as it is in this thread to justify standing shoulder by shoulder with people who despise feminism is short sighted and dangerous.

There's nothing 'shoulder to shoulder' about it. there are just small areas of overlap - all the way round. Of course it's a simplification - but frankly anyone who implies feminists are in anyway in some sort of pact with the 'Christian right' seems in need of that. I don't mean you - you're overanalysing it.

That is certainly the approach taken in Iran.

It's those who believe in trans ideology who share many ideological views with the conservatives/religious extremists, so could be said to be 'aligning with' them. They all believe in innate gender, and it's just in terms of what should be done about it that they differ, with one group advocating changing the mind, the other the body.

I don't agree that they're advocating different approaches. There are a number of high profile cases of devoutly Christian parents who when confronted with a gender non-conforming child have gone down the transition route:

'As early as 18 months old, Kimberly Shappley's son started showing signs he identified as female. Now, the Christian mom shares how she learned to embrace Kai's transition — for her child's happiness and safety.'

www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/

The story is painted as a Christian mother going against the grain in her community and embracing LGBTQ, but the reality behind it is that the mother confessed to hitting her child for potentially being gay and researched gay conversion therapy before the decision was reached that the child was trans. There's more about the family in this video:

The denial that this child might be gay suggests to me that there are those on the Christian Right who embrace changing bodies if it means having a daughter, rather than a gay, feminine presenting son.