To think Margaret Atwood is amazing

[Bibijayne]

Just that really.

(I realise it’s confusing that I started the above post with the word ‘no’ - apologies. Hopefully the rest of the post makes my meaning clear)

I am off for my walk now so can’t post for a while but will check in later

No, I agree that men commit most violent crimes and sex crimes (it being a case of fact) but what I don’t understand is why anyone would argue that this would justify defining who gets what legal rights in society on the basis of either sex or gender?

Because women are at risk from men, are sexually harassed by men and don't have the power men have, societally. Women's sex based rights reflect their biological issues and attitudes around them.

If she were talking about gender being an infinite variety, then fair enough. No-one I know sticks 100% to a gender stereotype, so there must be a sliding scale of gender.

But gender does not equal sex.

No, I agree that men commit most violent crimes and sex crimes (it being a case of fact) but what I don’t understand is why anyone would argue that this would justify defining who gets what legal rights in society on the basis of either sex or gender?

Although there is obviously much discussion about space and toilets, my need for a toilet that accommodates my female biology has nothing to do with male violence.

You could eradicate male violence tomorrow, and women would still need sex based rights.

A sliding scale. Fucking hell.

I mean that I don’t think there is any moral justification for using any characteristic - sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc - as a means of determining who holds what legal rights or has certain privileges. In the eyes of the law, all should be equal and all should have equal access. I appreciate this does not operate in practice (sexism, racism, homophobia etc all exist), but at least in theory it should be the case that these characteristics don’t determine your legal rights.

So how do you protect these groups from discrimination on the grounds of these characteristics?

In an unequal world is it just every person for themselves? Who do you think is best placed to benefit from a society where people's oppression isn't challengable in law?

@ListeningQuietly

Humans are XX or XY or very, very occasionally XXY or XYY there is no sliding scale between X any Y

This! People with XXY or XYY are the exception that proves the rule that sex is binary in humans, not evidence of a sliding scale.

No, I agree that men commit most violent crimes and sex crimes (it being a case of fact) but what I don’t understand is why anyone would argue that this would justify defining who gets what legal rights in society on the basis of either sex or gender?

So you do agree then. Not sure why you say "no" but then go on to agree that these are largely male crimes. Anyway. The fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent and sexual crimes, and that women are overwhelmingly often the victims of these crimes by male perpetrators, makes it vital that we are able to distinguish between the sexes. If we remove the meaning of the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female", which are rooted in biological fact, and allow them to mean "anyone who wants to be a man/woman" then we create a major safeguarding issue for women and children. You remove the right of the victim to name their oppressor, and then to add insult to injury you label them bigoted on top. Women need sex based rights enshrined in law because men commit sexual and violent crimes against us, and because they wield financial, social and political power over us as a class. To deny biology is to deny these facts.

I have no patience with the TWAW perspective. It isn't progressive, or liberal, or "inclusive". It is a hateful, anti-woman, anti-child, incredibly dangerous and misogynistic ideology.

All the posters saying MA is entitled to her own opinion, I don't actually believe she is in this case. She is stating something that just isn't true.

Humans a sexually dimorphic, that's a scientific fact not someone's opinion.

This. I agree with the previous poster who said she was embarrassed for Atwood. As ListeningQuietly said, she does not have enough scientific literacy to understand what she is talking about. It is embarrassing, for someone who is supposed to be one of the world's best authors.

It also seems to be partly about snobbishness - like she thinks she's being terribly clever that she holds this esoteric view because it sets her apart from all the poor rubes who naively think that there are only two sexes. It reminds me a bit of that Orwell quote: 'One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.'

In the eyes of the law, all should be equal and all should have equal access. I appreciate this does not operate in practice (sexism, racism, homophobia etc all exist), but at least in theory it should be the case that these characteristics don’t determine your legal rights.

In the eyes of the law we are all equal, but the law recognises that some people need additional rights and protections to achieve equality.

Fundamentally you are making the same argument that MRAs make - everybody just needs the same rights.

This picture might be helpful. In some cases its possible to remove all barriers to equality. However, it's impossible to completely negate the consequences of sex.

You can't say, well in my opinion badgers are amphibians, because you'd be taking absolute rubbish.

You could if you had evidence that everyone was wrong about the classification of badgers. You may or may not be wrong, but a different opinion may be understandable depending on this evidence.

But Atwood doesn't have any evidence. She literally is just saying the equivalent of "some badgers can swim and so can amphibians, so badgers can be considered amphibians". A type of fish can change sex, some people identify as the opposite sex, therefore sex isn't dimorphic.

It also seems to be partly about snobbishness - like she thinks she's being terribly clever that she holds this esoteric view because it sets her apart from all the poor rubes who naively think that there are only two sexes. It reminds me a bit of that Orwell quote: 'One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.'

YY

The majority of women you know who are reading widely from Atwood’s work - not just watching a tv show initially based on one novel - aren’t gender critical? Really?

You don’t know women who see gender as a social construct used as a tool of sex-based oppression? What do you think gender is? You see gender norms - false, made-up gender norms that restrict and damage both men and women - as benign or even positive?

I’m afraid it’s not me who needs a wider circle of friends.

This picture might be helpful. In some cases its possible to remove all barriers to equality. However, it's impossible to completely negate the consequences of sex.

That's great - hadn't seen a version of that meme which removes the barrier entirely before.

I have no patience with the TWAW perspective. It isn't progressive, or liberal, or "inclusive". It is a hateful, anti-woman, anti-child, incredibly dangerous and misogynistic ideology.

It is and we women need to start saying this loudly and clearly, instead of being defensive and trying to prove that we aren't 'transphobic' by sweetly asking for a 'balancing of rights'. We are not the ones who should be on the defensive. It's the people who are pushing for the removal of all single-sex provision and for the sterilisation of children who need to justify themselves.

This! People with XXY or XYY are the exception that proves the rule that sex is binary in humans, not evidence of a sliding scale.

XXY or XYY are both males

Aesop
True, but Turner's Syndrome - where women are just X rather than XX - would have made my post more complex.

My key point is that Atwood has linked to an article she clearly does not understand
and misrepresented science

Both JKR and MA have signed this letter.

harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

It's funny isn't it, that these discussions about sex not being binary and about how it's just oh so hard to define what a woman is, are coming about right now.

Throughout human history there has never been any fucking doubt about who the men are and who the women are. No one has ever had a problem with there being only two sexes and have always been able to tell who is who.

But now, just as women are finally making some gains towards equality, particularly in our society... Suddenly its just all so complicated? Suddenly sex isn't binary, and it is in fact oh so tricky to define what a woman is? And therefore sex based rights for women are now a grey area because well, what even is a woman anyway?

It's so fucking obvious what is going on here and it makes me sick to be honest.

So true.

@Highperbolay what you have just said is so true. I'm bloody furious.

All the posters saying MA is entitled to her own opinion, I don't actually believe she is in this case. She is stating something that just isn't true.

Of course MA is entitled to her own opinion. She is also allowed to be wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive. Writer Gets Science Wrong.🤷‍♀️

It doesn't make her stupid or a misogynist or evil or a woman who wants children to be abused.

@Hiperbolay

👏