Brilliant Margaret Atwood memoir review

I thought THT was a fairly good story, but I have never liked her novels overall. The people in them all seem to lack souls, they seem dead inside. THT was somewhat compelling, there was a vision of a coherent world. But I'm not sure it was really as insightful as some seem to think.

I think Stock is right that in her books, it seems like evil is imposed on women from outside mainly. She doesn't really seem to consider that women may use power for their own ends, including against other women. That women may not be simply serving patriarchy when they enforce conformity on other women, but that they do it because it satisfies their own desire for control and especially , status.

Your observation of Canadians is, I think, not inaccurate. I do think there is an additional element in that I doubt Atwood has been exposed to much of the discussion on these issues as the Canadian media is so locked down.

I am DELIGHTED with our progress.

Not so fast.

"Honestly, this is excellent if we have in fact reached agreement that in reality of course men are not women, however much they may wish to present like them (and even if on occassion they succeed in fooling people into thinking they are the other sex in social situations)."

It's a little more complicated than that. Men are not women in the reproductive biological sense, but some do share average biological psychological commonalities that would make them more like cis women than cis men. Therefore its reductive to use "are" than "like" in certain contexts. A very butch cis woman can be more like a man in terms of average behavioural traits.

"You must have mixed sex everything unless you can show that having separate sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If you successfully show that separate sex provision is a pmoaala (for which you would have to establish based on data and other evidence, that not to do so would negatively impact either men or women as a sex class), that is the end of the matter. There is no question that men with the other characteristic of a particular gender identity can be included in the provision for women, any more than you could include any other sub-set of men. If you say that, actually, you can include some men in the women's provision with no problem or detrimeny then your pmoaala basis for a single sex space is fatally undermined and you clearly don't actually need a single sex space. Therefore the provision must be entirely mixed."

As this is being judicially reviewed because of the the Good Law Project's legal challenge I don't think its time yet to make any conclusions particularly given the objections seem very compelling & the issues are more complicated than they appear.

Mind-blowing that an adult human male (presumably adult, but the jury is out) attends and comments on this feminist forum regularly, under some sort of illusion that women (adult human females) actually give a shit what they think.

Male entitlement in all its blaring, neon colours.

Go away. We're not interested in your garbled shite. Your opinion does not feature in women's thoughts. Irrelevant.
You're not one of us, and never will be.

Sad times, brother x

Interesting. I think I've only ever tried her books from 2000 onwards. Maybe I should try the early stuff. What did you think of them?

""If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport."

The differences are more about what qualifies as a detrimental outcome not to mention the dehumanising & demonising framing."

Honestly, this is excellent if we have in fact reached agreement that in reality of course men are not women, however much they may wish to present like them (and even if on occassion they succeed in fooling people into thinking they are the other sex in social situations).

If you are with me that far, then we are a lot further down the road of productive discussion than I imagined, and all we need argue about is in which situations sex matters.

Interestingly, that leads us precisely to the FWS Supreme Court judgment (which is cogent) where the answer is, essentially: You must have mixed sex everything unless you can show that having separate sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If you successfully show that separate sex provision is a pmoaala (for which you would have to establish based on data and other evidence, that not to do so would negatively impact either men or women as a sex class), that is the end of the matter. There is no question that men with the other characteristic of a particular gender identity can be included in the provision for women, any more than you could include any other sub-set of men. If you say that, actually, you can include some men in the women's provision with no problem or detrimeny then your pmoaala basis for a single sex space is fatally undermined and you clearly don't actually need a single sex space. Therefore the provision must be entirely mixed.

That is the legal argument re the EA2010 but also simply the logical one. If I have data that collected the incidents of assault against women in single sex changing rooms, prisons etc as compared to mixed sex ones and use that as the basis for my pmoaala, there is no basis whatsoever to make an exception for the section of the opposite sex who think or present in a traditionally feminine way, any more than it makes sense to make exception for any other sub-class of men. Because that's not level or the basis on which the separation was justified - it is entirely outwith relevance to the reasoning.

Essentially gender (or what you seem to be calling 'social' sex) is something completely separate from the question of in which situations sex matters. It doesn't even come into the discussion because we both acknowledge that sex is, in reality, biologically determined and is not affected by any other characteristic a person may possess.

We could go into chapter and verse about the facts and data of what causes harm when men (any men) are included and where women need single sex provision, but we have probably taken up enough of this thread and we would happily be back to arguing on the basis of factual evidence.

I am DELIGHTED with our progress.

I think the only other things I had to say about it Atwood were that I liked The Handmaid's Tale, The Testments and Cat's Eye quite a bit; I've found her other work harder to get into but must try again.

I started reading her books from the beginning (ie the earliest ones... not the beginning of each book) but got waylaid after a few... need to jump back in.

Err, I'm one of the very few commenters that directly addressed the OP. That other commenters have raised other issues related to that is on them not me.

It's interesting how just about every thread on MN feminism has 'derailing' tangents from most commenters & yet you only focus on me for 'some' reason….🤔

That you feel the need to actively prevent enragement when people can easily skip over irrelevant posts as we all routinely do says more about your fragility than anything else.

When he posts an untruth it's because he wants us to discuss Baileys and other cream liqueurs, apparently.

By all means crack on about Margaret Atwood. I discussed that too, and linked the discussion I was having with the other poster back to it.

I think the only other things I had to say about it Atwood were that I liked The Handmaid's Tale, The Testments and Cat's Eye quite a bit; I've found her other work harder to get into but must try again.

From what I've read, I find her views to be surprisingly unconsidered and shallow, particularly given what I consider to be her clear sense of herself as a bit of a logical, no-nonsense intellectual.

And, possibly controversially (and almost certainly a bit mean-spiritedly), she seems fairly typical of my personal, limited, experience of Canadians to date - (1) extremely concerned with being thought of as liberal-minded; (2) takes herself and everything else quite seriously; (3) considers herself to be a considered and serious thinker; (4) is actually quite hampered in (3) by being terrified of the alternative to (1).

What do you think?

1. "You are eliding the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on personality traits (your original stance) with the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on what you are now calling 'biological variation'. This is the same sort of double-think, mental goalpost shifting that I set out in my Group A/Group B examples. I'm not sure you're even aware that you are doing it."

Thanks for the bastardised version, but that's not helpful in a good faith discussion. You said:

"So your argument started out as being that in social situations we distinguish sex not via thousands of years of evolution that have enabled us to assess at a glance from countless subtle body cues from gait to tone, but via observed personality traits."

Which implied that social categorisations are based on evolved assessments that accurately reflect reproductive traits. I used an example of biological variation to show that 'evolved assessments' are not reliable & how we rely on surface level associations. In terms of social assumptions being made on personality traits, I made it clear at least twice before that:

"Presentation is downstream from personality inclinations so we do in a sense rely on personality traits."

"Presentation obscuring reality (as you put it) matters when rules are in place on the basis of reality,"

I don't disagree as I already stated regarding your example on pensioners. Again, you’re conflating two separate issues here: Social categorisations & legal ones. That there maybe competing rights as a consequence of social categorisations doesn't preclude their management like sporting restrictions.

In terms of being 'tricked' I would be very interested in your solution for policing such 'trickery'. As it turns out, jumping at 'trickery' shadows is exactly why cis women like Katie Delecky are facing harassment now.The increased scrutiny on women that's a direct consequence of trans panic hasn't made them any safer in fact more unsafe.

"You have prevented the correct risk assessment from being carried out and prevented him from applying the measures he would have applied had he known. The reality is that the sheep are less safe."

Um, I don't make the rules on gendered social categorisations (I'm not that powerful), I'm just describing them. These categorisations aren't prescriptivist, rather descriptivist of the reality that has been socially constructed. Trans people don't make the rules, they simply identify with them according to their personal inclinations.

"If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport."

The differences are more about what qualifies as a detrimental outcome not to mention the dehumanising & demonising framing.

The problem is it is totally derailing the discussion about Margaret Atwood.

1. You are eliding the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on personality traits (your original stance) with the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on what you are now calling 'biological variation'. This is the same sort of double-think, mental goalpost shifting that I set out in my Group A/Group B examples. I'm not sure you're even aware that you are doing it.
2. Presentation obscuring reality (as you put it) matters when rules are in place on the basis of reality, especially when these relate to safety. The reality is that wolves are not sheep. The reality is that some wolves prey on sheep. A sensible farmer will, on those bases, separate sheep and wolves as far as possible. If a farmer is tricked into believing that a wolf was a sheep (due to its personality, presentation, 'biological difference' or anything else), said farmer will have no reason to separate the Wolf-Who-Is-Now-A-Sheep-In-A-Social-Sense from the flock because he will not be aware that all the same risk factors apply as apply to any other wolf. You have prevented the correct risk assessment from being carried out and prevented him from applying the measures he would have applied had he known. The reality is that the sheep are less safe.

If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport.

But perhaps I'm doing you a disservice and that's exactly what you're now arguing for?

If you're a woman, may I suggest not copying the less attractive stereotypical male characteristics? And if you're a man, you might want to consider moving away from those same less attractive stereotypical male characteristics.

I find it difficult and sometimes in advisable to leave nonsense unanswered.

Just because it's obvious nonsense to you (and me) does not mean it's obvious nonsense to everyone reading.

I benefited hugely over the years from reading posters here meeting such nonsense with reasoned argument (initially because I hadn't thought about it all before, and later because it was an oasis of rationality at a time when I felt I was living in the upside down) and I am happy to pick up that baton where I can.

Sadly I don't think one ever gets to the stage (on any topic) of having the luxury of ceasing to make the argument for one's position. If you get complacent about it, you stop honing your arguments, the arguments stop being familiar to you and the world at large, and you (and the genesis that come after you) start to forget exactly what they were, why they were persuasive and why they mattered.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with that view of things.

"So your argument started out as being that in social situations we distinguish sex not via thousands of years of evolution that have enabled us to assess at a glance from countless subtle body cues from gait to tone, but via observed personality traits."

The idea that biological variation doesn't exist that creates ambiguity in social distinctions is scientifically illiterate. Clearly, the results speak for themselves:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/07/27/katie-ledecky-trans-rumors/

"It also fails to account for the fact that tricking someone into thinking you are something does not in fact make it so."

This one is particularly silly. That presentation may obscure gametal & chromosomal realities is irrelevant to social distinctions because THEY EXIST REGARDLESS. That people are 'tricked' doesn't change the social categorisation.

"If I trick people into believing I am of pensionable age - whether by altering my body, mannerisms or anything else - it does not and should not in fact grant me membership of that group and everything that goes with it."

It does grant you membership in a social sense but that's separate from whether it does in a legal sense that depends on the detrimental consequences so your example is a false equivalence.

Why does anyone reply to Howse? Surely the best thing to do
is ignore him?

So your argument started out as being that in social situations we distinguish sex not via thousands of years of evolution that have enabled us to assess at a glance from countless subtle body cues from gait to tone, but via observed personality traits.

When the silliness of this is pointed out you say, well, no, it's obviously based on physical observation but there may be cases where someone has deliberately modified their physical presentation (looks, gait, voice etc.) that it might fool others (some or all) as to their sex. And someone would have to be motivated by something to do that, and therefore it is their personality that causes them to do it, and therefore it's sort of people's personalities that we use to categorise by sex.

The second argument is so tortured I don't think it can even be called sophistry.

It also applies exclusively to trans people who 'pass' which I doubt is your intention.

It also fails to account for the fact that tricking someone into thinking you are something does not in fact make it so.

If I trick people into believing I am of pensionable age - whether by altering my body, mannerisms or anything else - it does not and should not in fact grant me membership of that group and everything that goes with it.

The criteria for membership of that group is to be human and to have been born a set number of years ago, not conforming to associations with that group and/or convincing enough people that I was born longer so than I actually was.

Exactly the same applies to your reproductive sex class.

Thanks for making these arguments (over and over and over again), though. I think it's good to have the weak reasoning out on display, along with the straightforward logical ripostes. I read posters on here for years who patiently performed this service for me so I like to think I'm paying it forward to other lurkers.

The idea that Howse doesn't post incontinent rubbish in a vainglorious attempt to convince us that there is a world where men can actually be women is ludicrous.

Whilst it's certainly true social pressures exist that influence human behaviour, the extent that they do in terms of personal choices varies. Humans are more complex than 'monkey see monkey do' logic thanks to the abstract reasoning they possess. There's also decades of research on how genes & hormones influence human behaviour not to mention the evolutionary pressures that shaped these.

The idea that humans don't have self awareness of their personal disposition & make decisions independent of social pressure to align with their personality is ludicrous.

Nope. I said:

"Observable patterns, trends or tendencies within exist within particular groups.
These do not equate to either necessary or sufficient conditions for membership of that group."

They do in terms of social categorisations tho. IE we don't use gametal or chromosomal tests to distinguish sex in social situations, rather typical associations.

"We don't distinguish sex, even in social situations, by how suggestible someone is, how 'kind' they feel they have to be, or in fact any personality traits."

Presentation is downstream from personality inclinations so we do in a sense rely on personality traits.

Some excellent posts on here making me think about feminism more widely. Re Margaret Atwood, surely she must be on the autistic spectrum - I’ve now come to believe that most brilliant writers are - by way of explanation of her seemingly limited ability to comprehend women’s concerns about gender ideology. And whilst most of her books I’ve found not to my taste, Handmaids Tale was brilliant for its language and accurate portrayal of just how quickly and easily (some) women lose their rights. Jo Stock review was insightful but I don’t discount the possibility of some future where women are forced to do ‘market friendly’ things against their own interests only I wouldn’t use ‘market friendly’, I’d use hegemonic or dominant interests for when we we finally run up against the limits of fundamental resources. Not in my lifetime and hopefully not in the lifetime of my DCs but certainly in a possible future. Also noted that the 7 BTL comments on Stock’s piece all seem to be by men.

I think the really interesting bit (that I don't think TRAs are at all conscious they are doing) is sliding the meaning of 'women' within the same thought, or even sentence.

To even be able to observe the original group pattern - Group A report higher levels of X than Group B (a simple example being, "women report higher levels of neuroticism than men") you have to have had at least one qualifying criterion for membership of Group A and Group B in the first place, and that criterion cannot be X (because X is the thing you are measuring - it was, at the start of your investigation, your unknown about which you were hoping to get an answer).

In reality, the original criteria for Group A is (and what TRAs know, on one level of their doublethink, that it is), has to mean 'adult+human+female', otherwise they're is no place to start. So what is being said originally is:
Group A [=adult human females] report higher levels of X [=neuroticism] than Group B [=adult human males].

If after getting that result you then try to mentally redefine Group A as, "anyone reporting higher levels of X", and Group B as "anyone reporting lower levels of neuroticism", you are now simply saying:
Group A [=people who report higher levels of neuroticism] report higher levels of X [=neuroticism] than Group B [=people who report lower levels of neuroticism].
Which is technically true, but tautologous and tells us nothing.

OR, a variation: if after getting that result you then try to redefine Group A as, "adult human females PLUS the portion of Group B reporting higher levels of X", and Group B as "adult human males EXCEPT those who report higher levels of X", you are now saying:

Group A [adult human females PLUS the portion of Group B reporting higher levels of X] report higher levels of X [=neuroticism] than Group B [=adult human males EXCEPT those who report higher levels of X].

Which is a partial tautology, artificially inflating the result you were investigating and ends up telling you little to nothing.

However, people rarely slow their thinking down and set it out clearly step by painstaking step in order to spot the fallacy, particularly when they are motivated NOT to try to spot it.

It's fascinating (and depressing).

To bring this back round to Atwood: perhaps unfairly I've always had the impression that she's a bit "I'm not like the other girls" and I think this comes through in interesting ways in her writing (even The Handmaid's Tale). Part if that, I think, is that she considers herself to be far more logical and 'no nonsense' than most. For that reason I'd be really interested to hear her taken through some of the rationale by someone like Helen Joyce, who is similarly data-driven, logical and straightforward but lacks whatever motivated reasoning seems to be operating on Atwood. Unfortunately I expect Atwood would not she to that as it's easier to handwave it all away than risk engaging and being confronted with uncomfortable fact and logic.

I guess it's a matter of taset. I'll take her chill over someone else's illusory comfort blanket. For me what she talks about is real, like it or lump it. Maybe I worry about the same things she does.

DH and I we went to an Atwood reading and Q&A many years ago. Someone asked why her books didn't have happy endings and she said, well the characters were still alive at the end weren't they? So now I sometimes say about a really grim story "It didn't have a happy ending. Not even a Margaret Atwood happy ending"

I found Stock’s review very perceptive. I read a lot of early Atwood, and then Handmaid’s Tale. But I’ve never ever wanted to re-read any of her books. They’re thrilling in one way: the extremity of her imagination, the cut-glass language. But they’re so chilly, as if her fictional worlds are full of thought experiments - beautiful and strange thought experiments - rather than a deep fascination and love for human beings and their stories. I’m glad I’ve read her, but I know I’ll never go back to her. And I think Kathleen Stock has put her finger on why that is.

I can't predict which way "old" feminist or women writers will go on the trans issue. I sometime amuse myself speculating about Andrea Dworkin. I can't guess which way she would have gone. I only know that whichever side she came down on she'd be all in, with both feet and 100% committed!