The Sunday Times - StrawMaid's Tale

I think you've misunderstood what the Venn diagram is illustrating. It's only about gender. It's not meant to be extended to anything else.

Yes, I get that. My point is that is a superficial intellectual exercise which is valid in abstraction, but we live in a real, messy world and 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.

Look for allies in the people who share your fundamental values but are different on one interpretation of those values, not people who have very different fundamental values but have a superficial alignment on one issue.

To be clear, I'm not talking about TRA here, but the many left-leaning people whose values of acceptance and open-mindedness make them sympathetic to trans people and aren't aware that TWAW also results in the negation and disempowerment of (biological) Female as a meaningful class of people.

I think the Venn diagram shared before is misleading. By cherry picking on the traditionally left side Trans Ideology vs Feminism, both effectively single-focus movements, and comparing to Conservative/Religious on the traditionally right which has a far wider agenda, it creates a false impression of how much common ground there is.

I think you've misunderstood what the Venn diagram is illustrating. It's only about gender. It's not meant to be extended to anything else.

It shows that trans ideology has as much in common with conservative views (gender is innate) as it does with feminism (gender doesn't have to match your sex). The overlap between feminism and conservative views is only on the scientific matter of sex being immutable.

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. (With feminists standing on the sidelines saying that gender is an oppressive construct that we'd all be better off without, so just be who you are.)

porn*

Atwood's ridiculous statements make me really glad that I gave up on reading THT once I got to the rape scene. It just striked me as misery por.

"Given that the Trump administration is now encouraging their followers to ignore the election result and throw out their democratic process to allow him to remain in power"

Not a fan of Trump but that's not what he's doing.

She might simply be intelligent but mendacious for those areas that suit her.

“The most bothersome thing about me,” she explains, “is that I’m a strict agnostic. By which I mean there’s a difference between belief and fact. And you should not confuse the two. You can believe all you like that trans people aren’t people, but it happens not to be a fact. It is not true that there are only two [gender] boxes. So the two questions to ask about anything are: is it true? And is it fair ? So if it’s not true that there are only two gender boxes and that gender is fixed and immutable, is it fair to treat trans people as if they’re not who they say they are?”

And I used to think she was intelligent.

I think the Venn diagram shared before is misleading. By cherry picking on the traditionally left side Trans Ideology vs Feminism, both effectively single-focus movements, and comparing to Conservative/Religious on the traditionally right which has a far wider agenda, it creates a false impression of how much common ground there is. I think if you redrew it with the groups of "People who hold (2nd wave) feminist views, People who hold Trans Ideology views and People who hold Conservative/Religious views, and opened it up not just to sex/gender but other social rights and protections, you'd find a huge alignment between the first two and very little with the third.

I think the way forward is to find and build on that common ground, not align with groups who agree with us about sex vs gender but only because they are very clear which sex/gender should be pretty, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

I have to say, any Brit accusing Canadians of just winding people up is a bit rich. If anything, we're an embarrassingly earnest people. (Though I accept that the Newfies I think she's alluding to in that quote are pretty distinctive.)

So this is interesting, from that 2006 interview in the Irish Independent (thanks for the link, Clymene):

“I will tell you what Canadians like to do, particularly if they're from the Maritimes," she smirks, not admitting to anything, least of all that she is playing with me as she might tease a kitten with a ball of wool.

"They like to tell you completely outrageous lies with a totally straight face; and they will go on with that until you either catch them out or they are overcome with guilt or pity and tell you the truth."

Maybe she and many of her fellow genderist Canadians are just playing a good old game of telling whoppers with a straight face and seeing how long they can keep it up? Certainly seems that way some days. Most days.

My take on what's happened in Canada is different to Goose's. I am a rural Canadian, one of the few in my family to get a university education and move away to the big cities, and then finally overseas. I am liberal, but my family is split between city-dwelling working class liberals and rural, get-off-my-land libertarians. Most of us work in the trades in one form or another. (I'm the exception.)

What I see happening in Canada is that they are watching the US, and as they always have they are backing away from what the Americans are doing and choosing a different path. (Scotland does this with England as well.) During Trump's reign, the needle swung so far against Canada's fairly middle-of-the-road progressivism that some people (including Atwood) went a bit nuts. Given that the Trump administration is now encouraging their followers to ignore the election result and throw out their democratic process to allow him to remain in power, I do not see many urban Canadians backing down on Wokeness soon. The activity over the border is too horrific to let them relax just yet.

Rural Canadians are a different bunch. Lots of them are quite resentful of what they regard as big shot city environmentalists telling them not to drill in the tar sands, or cut down old growth forest, when the city people are only likely to ever visit those places once a year on vacation. Note that this doesn't mean that the rural folks are right that drilling in the tar sands is a great idea, but a little recognition that they work in the resource-based industries that underpin a lot of the national economy would be nice.

But the narcissism of small differences exists among the rural "anti-Wokes", too. I was stunned to see a family member (evangelical Christian, lifelong conservative) denounce Trump for being a terrible example to Christians, only to have his own social circle turn on him and with no attempt at reasonable conversation, insist that Biden is JUST as bad on every measure and a traitor to boot. They were pretty nasty to him about it, too. So much for "Christian" behaviour!

The horseshoe theory is real, folks.

So disappointing! So OfFred should have just identified as Fred and then she could have identified out of being a handmaid. Somehow dont think Gilead would have fallen for identity politics when it comes to rape and forced surrogacy.

Thanks for the background Goose

You can believe all you like that trans people aren’t people

Who the bloody hell thinks this?! I see it claimed to have been said a lot, yet have never seen anyone actually say it. Same as 'you think transpeople don't exist'

Just such a ridiculous way to argue. Try taking on what people actually say, which will be along the lines of 'men are not women' or 'male violence is a real thing' or 'single sex spaces should remain single sex', or 'womens rights should be for WOMEN, else they are not womens rights'. Much harder to argue against that, so lets instead pretend that people who think sex segregation should remain are instead saying transpeople are all evil demons who do not even exist in this dimension, or something equally stupid.

Probably one of the few places they have seen it might be Jordan Peterson making the presentation to Parliament, and they think he is a crazy fascist - they'll not have listened to what he said

If they saw that they will probably have seen Theryn Meyer , who is trans but also opposed C-16. Meyer is right wing so her right wing views will have cancelled out the fact she is trans so she won't have been listened to either.

Atwood is:

1. An academic, living in a cosy ivory tower of academia where people hang on her every word
2. Canadian, where liberalism is celebrated and people like Atwood pretend they've never heard of yaniv and his persecution of poor Asian women
3. Wealthy and white. Self ID will never affect her. She can afford to give away women's rights for men's plaudits because she will never be adversely affected by her decision.

I think this interview is very revealing: www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/brittle-but-brilliant-26413526.html

I don't think it shows her to be eccentric but sharp, I think she comes across as spiteful and sneering.

It's hard to over-emphasis the extent to which mainstream, centrist, liberal Canadians, have never been exposed to any depth on this issue.

It rarely appears in the media, certainly not on the Cbc or ctv, the largest broadcasters. Our media is quite small compared to yours - there are only two national newspapers. People do not know who Meghan Murphy is (and FC is light on Canadian material, anyway.) Probably one of the few places they have seen it might be Jordan Peterson making the presentation to Parliament, and they think he is a crazy fascist - they'll not have listened to what he said.

Many Canadians are still assuming most trans people have sex change operations, are seriously affected by dysphoria, and that the science and doctors are quite unifies in their views about gender dysphoria. Also, they tend to think there is objective medical evidence that trans people are more lie the other sex and this affects them in some fundamental way.

I doubt Atwood has ever had a conversation with anyone who really thought differently about it.

Honestly Quaagers, I don't take a lot of notice of your posts because of their uselessness. You have confirmed that is the right approach.

implies that gender critical feminism is saying trans people aren't "human"

I think what is meant here is that they're not saying trans people aren't human, it's COMPLETELY missing the point to say of course they're human!
Well, yes, of course they are, has anyone ever said otherwise?!
It happens on here - kind of like a dehumanisation, like trans people are big bad bogey people out to get you.
(NOT by everyone before anyone starts)
To try and argue "yes, we know trans people are human, what are you talking about?" is either deliberately missing the point or flat out refusing to see it.

I doubt she is a male mastuabatory fantasy either, which is usually crucial to popular success for women

What tosh. Why do "feminists" need to put down women in this way?

I hate making up this list as it's commenting on their appearance but off the top of my head without Googling, P.D James, Hilary Mantel, Val McDermid, Jeanette Winterston Sarah Waters , Joanna Trollope, Joanne Harris, Ruth Rendell even J.K Rowling-

Those who know more about Canadian academia than I do, is this because she's Canadian and their institutions went full woo woo a long time ago? Is it likely that her circles are entirely populated by woo woo proponents? Is there an element of that with the Fawcett Soc and WEP possibly! Peer pressure of sorts, but more in the sense that all right thinking people she knows might be absolutely convinced of this stuff and it's easier to buy into it as a result and after a while convince yourself it's true. Sorry, not explaining myself very well.

I meant that I assumed I need hardly explain on here what an idiotic proposition it is.

I love Atwood's novels, particularly The Blind Assassin, and I disagree that she hasn't been a force for women and literature.

However, I do think she's weighing in while on the edge of understanding this issue and likely was spoon fed crap from her publisher. Which is sad because she sounds ridiculous.

I've never understood why it THT was taken as a feminist book. I read it when it was published and just thought it was a horrible fantasy meant to scare people for pleasure in the way Stephen King novels do. I thought it was a bit too silly in places, especially the bit with the handmaids being impregnated with the wife. There's worse shit in real life going on, I can't get worked up about fictional characters and couldn't when I read it years ago. I don't get worked up about vampires and zombies either. And the rest of her books have been limp. She gets far too much feminist thought for a mediocre novelist who wrote a b movie type schlock buster 30 odd years ago.

I wonder on what basis Margaret Attwood chose which characters in her books were handmaids and which were generals? Do you think that it was on Gender or Sex?

I also saw her tweets on slugs, she is definitely the one doing the dehumanising. How disappointing.