Eve: a new book about female evolutionary biology

I have been enthralled by this brilliant book and recommended it to everyone. So the betrayal hit me hard. They save it for page 292, and I've uploaded the page for you to see for yourself. Convoluted sentences of twaddle frequently punctuated with "clearly", "simply": good science speaks for itself and doesn't need these unconvincing adverbs. To be honest the entire "Brain" chapter is a crock of shite: its whingey, morallising tone drones on about microagressions and is full of conjecture.

To help me finish the book I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt and imaginging she wrote these passages under duress, fearful of losing her career when she's still so near the start of it, or that it was ghostwritten by a sensitivity jerk - that would explain the change in tone.

What's really sad is that whilst on the one hand I want to shout "Don't buy this book!", on the other hand I don't want the wretched trans mob to yet again trample over discourse on women: most of the book is necessary, overdue, important - a vindication of womanhood. Why didn't the Times reviewer call out the crap? Perhaps because everyone would focus on that, and yet again forget about the bodies and rights of actual women. Just skip the Brain chapter and don't get distracted.

In the meantime I'm grateful to you mumsnetters for speaking freely.

I also thought it was about older women's value to the tribe as sources of knowledge.

I think Elaine Morgan said it showed that women's value was computed above the neck...

@WinterTrees her books are on Scribd. One subscription gives access to lots of similar books plus her ones.

first mention of transwomen, who - lord above - “are usually born without a vagina”

What. The. Fuck. 🤡

Glad I’m not the only one. This came up as a suggested buy for me and it was sitting in my basket when I read the guardian review. It’s a good job the review sets the authors stall out like this, as I would have been disappointed to find out after having spent £20 on the book.

If they were born with a vagina they wouldn't be transwomen would they?

Not saying I’ve read EVERY word, but got to page 75 before finding Cat Bohannon’s first mention of transwomen, who - lord above - “are usually born without a vagina”. Then on page 83 she talks about the “rather small difference” in foetal genital development “that takes a handful of weeks and frequently goes astray” - I guess this is the “we all start off as female in the womb” trope I’ve heard a lot lately.

Such a shame, as I’m finding it hard to trust everything else she says, which is all very readable and interesting. To be fair both of the above examples are in the copious “notes” at the bottom of nearly every page, rather than the main body of text.

At FiLIA, Bea Campbell was talking about her latest book on the Cleveland scandal and said that descriptions of the effect of the sex abuse on children which had been published in her book in the 80s were considered too upsetting for modern readers. She pushed back against this.

I read Unwell Women too and found that section to be screamingly shoehorned in. I think many publishers are now using sensitivity readers in order not to put off gender-woo types, so they can sell more copies and avoid bad publicity.
I was looking forward to reading Eve, but am not sure I will now.

Same for elephants - older females remember things like how to deal with rare climate events, so can lead the herd to different waterholes in severe drought. Not sure that invalidates the grandmother hypothesis though - I've always understood it as being about the value of knowledge, not merely holding babies.

In finding it's amusing that she's saying they grandmother hypothesis (we live beyond menopause to provide childcare) may not be accurate as orcas have menopause and they seem to be the holders of memory and experiences that benefit in times of need.

Women know stuff.

If anyone has a Guardian account, comments still seem to be open on one of the, there's at least three, articles on this book. Although they have deleted a number.

I'm glad that part has been widely quoted because now I won't buy the book.

And another book called "disobedient bodies" which is around the cult of beauty - which actually sounds like it could be interesting

Book belong discussed at the moment in start the week

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbcradioo_fourfm?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Not sure if that link works?

Amazon sent me this book the other day - I hadn’t ordered it! Anyway, I started reading the introduction and it’s fascinating, engaging and really readable. Haven’t got to the TWAW bit yet, but I see she’s American, where everything’s a bit more insane on GI, maybe it will just be a sop to the activists to enable publication, I hope so, as it’s (so far) a rollicking good read.

It's just damage limitation. The whole thing is basically a protection racket, and anyone who writes a book now feels they have to put the TWAW clause in to cover their back. 🙄

Surprisingly my comment is still there and some kind poster has replied saying "Good summary, common sense approach which reconciles gender and biology."

LOOK IT UP!

The Guardian is happy to leave that bullshit up for all to read. But God forbid anyone suggests humans/mammals can’t change sex. I read - bought - that paper for 40 fucking years! Can’t believe what it has become. They had a women’s page and everything!!!

One of the reviews:

The Female existed first on Earth,acc. to Evolutionary Biology-and the Male evolved out of the female,at, least among Mammals. This is why Men have Breasts and some Men lactate breast milk. Men and women have both male and female sex hormones.
So there is no 100% woman with only 100% female sex hormones. And no 100% Man.
A man can have a a male body but due to excess female hormones ,as a fetus, have a more female brain...Look it up.

I mean good grief, I can't really thing what to say other than that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing but this contributor doesn't even seem to possess a little knowledge yet still manages to espouse dangerous trash. THAT should be modded out, as it's so far off true and potentially misleading to other TRA who didn't pay attention in school!

Ah, that’ll be me.

They've started modding. Brit's comment is still there (for now) but one has gone for 'not meeting community standards'.

Absolutely weird to read that introduction sample and find the shite about 'brain-based' gender apparently inserted by a different author (i don't think it was, it's just a screeching disconnect with the rest of the intro).

Similar effect in Unwell Women by Elinor Cleghorn, where a paragraph of obeisance to gender is clumsily inserted into the introduction about female bodies.

Is this the impact of a sensitivity reader? God I would love to know. But they'd never admit it.

I'm reminded of Jane Austen havibg to dedicate her novel to the loathesome Prince Regent, only instead of being deadpan and sarcastic, these authors seem to have convinced themselves to say 'Prince George, you're terrific and soooo fit!!'

The author sounds completely full of herself… life drawing model, poet, egg donor, academic, musician and ‘nearly a sex worker’. Bold in speaking against ‘Sex essentialism’ ffs. Wonder how the women murdered, sexually assaulted, and raped daily feel about their sex essentialism.

The person writing the review is a doctor and psychiatrist and ends the review stating: The author’s parting plea is that we learn more about women and girls. In the UK, unlike the US, there is still no regulation that insists women are included in medical research. Not everyone agrees with the ethical good of extending participation. Might they acknowledge that being specific about people’s sex and gender leads to more rigorous and reproducible scientific results? It’s also a safer approach. Studying men, unaffected by periods and pregnancy, may produce “clean” data, but only by shifting risk for women out of the controlled setting of a lab and into the chaos of the real world.

What a crazy logic fail. If trans women are women (and the reviewer does not offer a critique of this argument), why is she worrying about including ‘women’ in medical research?

Ah, damn. When I first heard of it, I thought this book had a great premise. I might have considered adding it to my Christmas wish list. Still, I shouldn't have expected any different once I saw that she was US-based.