The Sunday Times - StrawMaid's Tale

It's really bothering me because I can't find the reviews, but I remember when THT was published and Atwood was openly and clearly adamant that it was NOT a (radical) feminist novel. The clue comes at the start when Offred's mother joins the religious right in burning pornography. Atwood was and is a liberal feminist.

This is the best analysis I can find. I remember interviews with Atwood driving home this point.

www.researchgate.net/publication/237268394_Margaret_Atwood%27s_The_Handmaid%27s_Tale_1985_Cultural_and_Historical_Context

I like strawmaid.

She's lost the plot. Very sad to see.

What a bizarre comment. Either she doesn't understand the GC feminist position at all or she is being deliberate in using hyperbole to stir up anti-feminist feeling.

Excellent point seahorses.

Margaret Atwood linked the state of being trans to slugs, worms and clownfish in her bizarre series of tweets earlier this year. The only one saying transpeople aren't human is her.

@yourhairiswinterfire

I've never heard a single person say trans people aren't people What a fucking ridiculous statement.

Misinterpreting, probably deliberately, what's happening to fit their argument as per.

Why she's decided to lump JK Rowling, whose books have been banned by Christian fundamentalists for "glorifying witchcraft," in with them is beyond me. Maybe she needs to travel and meet new people more?

Exactly. Facial hair is no barrier to being a lesbian.

[quote HaveaStock]The video ‘takedown’ of JKR’s views would have been the Jammidodger one as I remember her referencing it before - she said something like ‘two nice young people explaining it’ or words to that effect. It absolutely illustrates the level of thought and critical analysis she’s given the subject ie. very little. I think she got a bit of shit for not including any trans people in the Handmaids Tale and has been atoning ever since.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Avcp-e4bOs[/quote]
Oh they’re the ones who say “do we look like a lesbian couple?” so I guess they don’t think Alex Drummond et al are lesbians then - one of them has to be wrong!

She talks about her husband being a gent! Where's that on the spectrum I wonder?

I echo the disappointment of other posters. This one really hurts. How could she have written that book and not understand (or choose to ignore) how biology oppresses females.

Glad to see the comments on the article are just taking her arguement apart.

Thanks for the share token link.

Pink News have picked up on this as though it proves they are right.

But the very worst part of it is Margaret Atwood who is all about fact checking etc., etc., implies that gender critical feminism is saying trans people aren't "human".

Where has anyone said this. I can only think she has decided to believe this rather than have to answer the actually point about biological sex.

Which given her father's profession and her childhood she would have easily been able to discuss.

Last time this came up, I could only think she has a young relative who she desparately wants to be admired by so has concocted this none arguement to then provide a non answer to a non question.

Transgenderism in its recently evolved form is based on a massive lie, that it's possible to change sex. It seems that once people have swallowed that their anti-lie immune system goes down and they'll suck up anything, true, false, whatever, so long as it comes from the same source.

I can't listen to them, they are a couple of evangelists. I'm not interested in being lectured by lying young people claiming that they are being honest and factual. Very misleading and manipulative. I've skipped through and everything I have listened to is bullshit.

The lies about Maya Forstater misgendering a colleague are repeated in that video.

If you have to lie about everything you have got nothing.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument, what is this - a reflex defence of who she perceives to be the underdog? She obvious hasn't spent much time actually looking for facts.

The video ‘takedown’ of JKR’s views would have been the Jammidodger one as I remember her referencing it before - she said something like ‘two nice young people explaining it’ or words to that effect. It absolutely illustrates the level of thought and critical analysis she’s given the subject ie. very little. I think she got a bit of shit for not including any trans people in the Handmaids Tale and has been atoning ever since.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Avcp-e4bOs

Maybe they should have got Jenny Murray to do the interview rather than Appleyard
Also in today's Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6c470e5a-1f55-11eb-985d-994f7bd0fdd6?shareToken=e034e62fb9dc38e5bfcd7626be83c4a9

I've never heard a single person say trans people aren't people What a fucking ridiculous statement.

Misinterpreting, probably deliberately, what's happening to fit their argument as per.

while believing oneself to be morally superior

Atwood has an almost palpable belief in her moral superiority- it blazes out of every interview.

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?”

She is completely confusing sex and gender.

I've never liked Atwood. It's never been a concern of mine to read a novelist just because she is a feminist but if it were Atwood has never struck me as particularly liking or understanding of women in the way say Edna O'Brien is.