Hadley Freeman Margaret Attwood article guardian today

I think all of this is more in depth than someone like Atwood has likely been exposed to.

It's hard to give a sense of the limits of the Canadian media compared to that in the UK, but in depth pieces critical of gender ideology don't exist. We are in a place where the only kind of warning voice allowed would still never question the basic ideas around gender identity. Maybe where the Uk was 5 years ago.

Yes, I understand that, and about 5 years ago was when I first arrived here, having been signposted by someone on another forum. I was completely mystified why my newspaper of choice (the Guardian) thought everything to do with transgenderism was wonderful, when all I could see in it was the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and offensive sexist ideas like 'lady brains'.

So what I really don't understand is why all these educated people don't stop and think for themselves about this. They shouldn't need the media to do their thinking for them if they're educated and consider themselves intellectuals. They should be thinking.

It's hard to give a sense of the limits of the Canadian media compared to that in the UK, but in depth pieces critical of gender ideology don't exist. We are in a place where the only kind of warning voice allowed would still never question the basic ideas around gender identity. Maybe where the Uk was 5 years ago.

MA is to feminism what Margaret Thatcher was to Girl Power

I think Atwood has always been one of those women who privileges her own experiences above other people's. I like her writing but think she has no sense of the collective. She's perfectly entitled to be this way of course but I think she much prefers to be seen as a lone voice, distinct from the crowd.

Yes, I agree. And I think feminists may have misinterpreted HT as a novel about oppression of women when it was actually a novel about something else (totalitarianism?) and she was using a very old trope - VAWG - to tell the story. I agree with a pp that 'she seems to enjoy piling misery on her female characters' and I think that maybe all this time that has been misinterpreted, partly because she is female.

I don't particularly think it's especially laudable to reject the idea that male and female brains or thinking might be different for ideological reasons, but certainly in this instance there is no real evidence of the supposed hormone wash theory.

There may well be differences, as there are in other organs (heart attack symptoms are different for example), but the idea of a sexed brain always seems to revolve around stereotypes. And the idea of a 'lady brain' which was too frivolous to cope with serious matters is what kept women out of public life and positions of power for centuries. People like MA really should think about what it means to embrace sexist ideas like this.

I've never heard of a man claim he 'knows' he's a woman because he's had breast cancer, or because he believes one of his organs (his heart or liver for example) behaves more like that of a woman. It's always his brain having female attributes. Meanwhile, in most cases, his male reproductive system works just as well as that of any other man.

But the idea of an opposite sexed brain to the body is nonsense in any case. If a man's brain has attributes which it was thought only occurred in women, it doesn't mean that he has a woman's brain, but that the hypothesis that these attributes only occurred in women was wrong.

I don't particularly think it's especially laudable to reject the idea that male and female brains or thinking might be different for ideological reasons, but certainly in this instance there is no real evidence of the supposed hormone wash theory. A lot of people like MA are relying on some of the old studies of dissections etc of brains of transsexual women. That's not as totally crazy as it seems, I remember reading about them in university psychology texts in the late 80s/early 90s, so it was being proposed then as a serious possibility.

Actually, perhaps you have

1. The TRAs pushing the "innate satnav" line, bearded lesbians and all that, and then
2. A wider population of useful idiots who really do assume it's about masculinity and femininity, and don't want to cause any upset by questioning the sexist assumptions, the bearded lesbians etc.

It's odd, the gendered brain in wrong body theory, because despite all this flim-flam about hormone washes and masculinity and femininity, when it comes down to it they also deny that being trans has anything to do with masculinity and femininity. Surely all these affluent Canadian liberals have encountered trans people who seemed completely unremarkable, typical members of their sex prior to transition? They can't really think it only (or even mostly) involves effeminate gay men and very butch lesbians? No. I think, when pressed, they would say it's simply something in the brain that tells you whether you're a man or a woman (presumably with an in-between setting for non-binary). Which is patent nonsense, but I expect they don't want to look at it too closely. Safer not to question.

The brain is also part of the body. Most people who think this way are basing it on the idea that the brain structures of people who are trans are in some important way more like the brains of opposite sex people - they have in some way been feminized or masculinized. Many believe in the hormone wash theory. They also tend to believe all of this is well supported scientifically.

So it's the 'born in the wrong body' idea that they believe in? Meanwhile over here organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids, who have pushed that narrative for years, are furiously back-pedalling and insisting that they never said that.

The hormone wash theory is an odd one. I know we're not talking about scientists here, but has it not occurred to them that if there could be such a strong effect on the brain, to create a female brain in a male body (and I'd like to know what they think is the difference between a male and female brain), that it is odd that it has absolutely no other effects on the body?

And as Warrior says, the idea of 'lady brains' is sexist as hell.

Thanks for the link, SadWordlePlayer. I am full of admiration for Hadley Freeman for being brave enough to raise the topic. Margaret Attwood's position is more nuanced than her famous comment about not 'being the sort of feminist who was against lipstick and bothered about letting transgender people into bathrooms' but few journalists have sought to explore this more fully.

I've read a lot of her novels. She has always prided herself on her scientific knowledge, which she compares favourably with other novelists. That comes out clearly in Oryx and Crake. However, in the interview she only offered the long established fact that chromosomal variations exist as her riposte to the argument that sex is dimorphic. It feels like she is stuck in a 1970s view of science. There's an interesting contrast here with Ian McEwan who has engaged much more deeply with how contemporary novelists can engage with rapid advances in science.

I think Atwood has always been one of those women who privileges her own experiences above other people's. I like her writing but think she has no sense of the collective. She's perfectly entitled to be this way of course but I think she much prefers to be seen as a lone voice, distinct from the crowd. Let's not forget that for many years prior to the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale she was feted as Canada's most famous novelist, a level of public recognition she would never have had had she been American or British. When she won the Booker with Bernadine Evaristo she was so condescending to Evaristo. It actually came across as quite colonialist to me, as if Evaristo had never won a literary award before and needed to be encouraged to write more.

Longwinded way of saying I'm not expecting her to change her public stance on sex and gender!

I have v educated friends with phds, but not in the area of biological sciences who believe it's all to do with some sort of vague hormonal "issue." That needs correcting. They've then not worked out how sexist it is. But if I'm honest it was through really thinking hard and reading here that I untangled it for myself.

It may not seem like an educated position but the people who think this way, like MA, tend to be well educated middle and upper middle class people with good incomes. You are more likely to find doubters among people who are not university grads or who live in rural areas.

Particularly among educated liberals, most believe being trans is a dsd and that's the line that organizations like the CBC follow.

That doesn't seem like a very educated position. Surely educated people would take the time to find out what it really means. Ask questions and do some research.

"Trans people" is understood to mean people with a particular issue with their brain.

'An issue with their brain' isn't the same as a DSD. How can they believe trans is both a DSD and a disorder of the brain?

It strikes me that Canada really are clueless and so she's had no real discourse. That she's mentioned dsds before demonstrates naivety to me.

I would say this is true. Particularly among educated liberals, most believe being trans is a dsd and that's the line that organizations like the CBC follow. "Trans people" is understood to mean people with a particular issue with their brain.

Sorry wrong thread - Jess retweeted the Unherd article.

I noticed Jess Cartner-Morley on the Guardian fashion desk - Hadley's former boss - retweeting Hadley's article and supporting her on Twitter. Good to see.

I heard the end of the WH interview too (and the very beginning, at which point DH came in to Talk to me 😠) I was going to go back and listen again, but I don't know if I'll bother. Right at the end of the interview MA just threw in that Emma Barnett had a piece of hair sticking up on her head that made her look like a kitten. It seemed such a bizarre and unnecessary thing to mention on the radio - and at the point when EB was clearly winding the interview up - and like it could only have been intended to undermine her professionalism. To make her feel and seem a bit silly and young. Kitten comes across as a very gendered descriptor too. It made me think that MA is someone I don't particularly want to give my time and attention to these days.

If Margaret does as much reading into subjects as Hadley described, I wouldn't be surprised if she peaks sooner or later.

She didn't come across very well in the article though.

That was really creepy. Sounds like she was slumming it and toying with him. Hadley was obviously quite embarrassed. She was just on WH but I only caught the last 5 mins.

But she clearly doesn't believe what she saying. She's unable to explain her position or talk about it with passion. So why is she doing it?

Sorry I haven't rtft, I've just read the article.

Is it possible that Hadley is the first to be able to properly engage with her, at length, privately, in a way that MA made sense of?

Twitter just causes sides.

It strikes me that Canada really are clueless and so she's had no real discourse. That she's mentioned dsds before demonstrates naivety to me.

Growing up in Canada I’d see her on tv all the time. She always came across as very full of herself, condescending and sneery. This impression did not improve when she came to the bookshop I worked in for a signing. She was cold and contemptuous to the staff and book rep.

As for her saying Canadians could never think of themselves as August Personages, that’s ridiculous. We are incredibly deferential to anyone in authority (too much so, this is part of why the situation in Ottawa has been so shocking), and so of course some personalities, Atwood included, set themselves up as unassailable authorities on this and that and the rest of us just tug our forelocks and pay homage.

GCAutist I agree that I could understand all that. What I don't like is her, "I don't have to behave myself", "I get to be condescending", "I like to do my research", "I am not suspicious or cautious where others might be. Also, I don't have a job, so I can't be fired", "I'm too old [to be hurt to be criticised by people who once idolised her]!" schtick coupled with the approach you mention.

If one is afraid to either look at the issue square in the face, to research it thoroughly or to speak up with an heretical opinion (according to your circle) or with any opinion at all because an issue is too 'hot button' for you, well all of that is understandable, however much I might wish it were different.

But if that's how you feel, then at least some of the boasts quoted cannot be true and the contradiction (or lack of self-awareness) is quite annoying.

Brava Hadley! Would love to know the details of the email exchange, but just glad to know it happened.

On the point of how MA shooed away the fan, yes it does sound a bit rude, but he had way outstayed his welcome.
No celebrity is obliged to engage with random strangers who approach them (as most of us wouldn't). She was friendly, she chatted, but she was working - he should have had the manners to leave them to it way before 5 minutes had elapsed. Sounds like male entitlement taking up women's time. Fair enough that she not so politely let him know it was more than enough.

Got to the bit about the avocado toast and couldn't be arsed, to be honest. A difficult read, and far too much personal interjection from Hadley. Left me quite uninterested in both of them. Will leave Twitter to it

Margaret should be embarrassed about this performance. She has come across as someone more interested in building their own hype than doing what is right - bandwagon jumper really.

I don't think Atwood's position has anything to do with not being brave enough to stand up.

She just doesn't get it. You can see that in the things she says. Some of that is probably because she is caught in a liberal Canadian bubble.

I don't like her writing, the people in her books all seem like they lack souls, they are usually quite selfish.