To think Margaret Atwood is amazing

[Bibijayne]

Just that really.

Based on her tweets, I think she is thinking that this sliding scale has fertile women at one end, fertile males at the other, and I guess other people in between somehow.

And the problem in Gilead is that they assigned these terrible roles to some of the people who happen to be fertile. It's not quite that she is saying females don't exist or are unrecognisable.

She seems to think trans persons also are in the middle because of brain issues, their brains don't match their bodies, so a kind of intersex.

She's basically five years behind the discussion, and doesn't understand the article she's read and the busines about the slugs are junk science.

@katrina11 agree. I suspect a great many people have not actually read the book.

She sure has an amazing case of cognitive dissonance going on. Possibly one of the most extreme cases I've ever seen.

[quote CluelessBaker]@katrina11 I couldn’t agree more. I’ve also always wondered if the GC don’t realise that their absolute insistence that a persons sex is their defining characteristic aligns them much more closely with Gilead than with anyone who opposes it.[/quote]
What do you mean by defining characteristic?

It defines my sex, and probably influences a number of other things about me. There are all kinds of other things about me unrelated to me sex though.

That's pretty standard for someone GC, although some might give less weight to the idea their sex influences them apart from their biological sex role.

I haven't read any of her books.
I don't do twitter either but have got the gist, from this thread and have one question.

Are there clownfish?

What do you mean by defining characteristic?

Defining of your worth / social status / freedom / security / etc.

I'm puzzled by people on here, who are supposedly 'gender critical' asking whether women can 'identify' out of their roles in Gilead. The whole point of the books is that anyone who doesn't conform to a strict stereotype is either tortured/killed or both.

But only the men get to conform to the gender stereotype of being commanders, while only women can be handmaidens. The roles people can assume are determined by their sex, and they are not equal.

Her writing is amazing. The fish stuff, not so much.

Could we have a little Nemo for these threads? Like the pom bear and the biscuit?
I'd like that.

@katrina11

I'm puzzled by people on here, who are supposedly 'gender critical' asking whether women can 'identify' out of their roles in Gilead. The whole point of the books is that anyone who doesn't conform to a strict stereotype is either tortured/killed or both.

Gilead is not something Atwood wants us to aspire to FFS - its a critical look at a dystopian society where there is no room for 'gender traitors'.

Bit depressing that people who call themselves feminists are now calling Atwood a 'handmaiden' on twitter because she is trans inclusive (although she's having lots of fun with them so obviously doesn't care)

Attwood has repeatedly asserted that Handmaid's Tale is based on the oppression of females that is happening in real life around the world. Women being categorised and discriminated against because of their sex. So, if Attwood has always believed that biological sex is a sliding scale, what is she saying about all the women around the world upon whom her tale of oppression is based? Were/are those women womening incorrectly? What should we (adult human females, that is) be learning/doing to stop the oppression happening right now that she apparently witnessed in order to write Handmaid's Tale?

Awww I was waiting for someone to post ‘blink three times if you need help leaving, Margaret, give us a sign!’ Living in Canada and running in the literary circles (Gwen Benaway fiasco et al) it’s unsurprising that she spouts soothingly appropriate gender ideology. She’d be cancelled otherwise. (Not that she gets out much these days).
She’s always been a cow though. Being a brilliant writer doesn’t make you a nice person. Bitingly incisive, or confusingly ambivalent depending on mood, but a publication history means little. You don’t have to believe what you are writing about, just wield your instrument to render it utterly believable/ prophetic/ historical.
By using real world examples to base the tale on, it is of course recognizable. I don’t recognize the clownfish or slug analogy as it doesn’t apply to humans. That’s not confirmation bias
She’s a deft storyteller. She’ll struggle to make this one believable if she bases it on slugs though.

I’ve also always wondered if the GC don’t realise that their absolute insistence that a persons sex is their defining characteristic aligns them much more closely with Gilead than with anyone who opposes it.

Wonder no more!

I can't speak for everyone, but I consider myself gender critical and I do not think sex or gender are defining characteristics. However, I do need specific rights because of my sex, because in some situations my ability to participate equally in society can be limited because I am female.

We are all just humans, and some of us need specific rights and protections for various reasons.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

I haven't read any of her books. I don't do twitter either but have got the gist, from this thread and have one question.

Are there clownfish?

Nemo is a clown fish

Clownfish are all born male. As I understand it:
When necessary one of them changes sex to become female and the dominant member of a group. That change is irreversible and it only happens in response to the specific stimulus of a group needing a female leader.

I’ve also always wondered if the GC don’t realise that their absolute insistence that a persons sex is their defining characteristic aligns them much more closely with Gilead than with anyone who opposes it.

Being GC for me is about exactly the opposite how sex does not define you and how gender is a load of bollocks.

As for Margaret Atwood she is entitled to her own opinions but it's a bit like when you find out someone is a scientologist or a flat earther or an antivaxxer. You can still read their stuff but the shines been taken off it a bit.

I give in but..

Why do you consider me to be stuck on it but you not to be? That seems like a double standard. Because I have posted on a few other ideas within the thread... but I will take your point and leave you to it. My apologies for intruding on your solipsis.

By the way the GC is a tad unpleasant! And I would agree with merrymouse.... most GC posters would only mention their sex or sexual characteristics because that is what has long being used to deny women access to much of society. That is the root of patriarchy!

Funny how the female sex is always easy to spot when you wish to subjugate women, but is a GC obsession when we object!

@CluelessBaker

What do you mean by defining characteristic?

Defining of your worth / social status / freedom / security / etc.

Yeah, GC people don't say that.

What they say is that your femaleness defines your sex, that is a real and material thing.

That will materially affect certain things about your life. If you are not a woman, you will not be a mother, have to worry about becoming a mother, or not becoming a mother. You won't have to consider how you might breastfeed your child while continuing to work, or whether it would be better not to work during that time. You won't have to deal with access to sanitary products or bad periods or private places to deal with menstruation. If you live in a place without good access to contraception, or prefer not to use it, you won't have to decide to avoid sex on order to avoid pregnancy. You won't suffer the problems and after-effects of pregnancy. You won't go through menopause with all its effects.

Some of these things are significant enough to actually altar the course of a person's life, even under the best of circumstances.

The point GC people make is that these facts about your sex should not be detrimental to your freedom/worth/social status/security.

But saying that motherhood has nothing to do with differences in career outcomes for women just means you really don't understand why that happens. It's not random, it's in part the nature of being a mother, and in part what society does about that fact.

[quote CluelessBaker]@katrina11 I couldn’t agree more. I’ve also always wondered if the GC don’t realise that their absolute insistence that a persons sex is their defining characteristic aligns them much more closely with Gilead than with anyone who opposes it.[/quote]
Your grasp of gender criticism is shaky. GC feminists understand that the basis of women's oppression is their reproductive biology, which cannot simply be identified out of (or, indeed, into). So when people either wilfully or mistakenly deny the importance of biology, they are denying the very basis of female inequality in a patriarchal society and why feminism is needed to redress that inequality. GC feminists are also aware that the social stereotypes traditionally linked to biological sex do not define whether you are male or female, and should not restrict you from following a particular career path, dressing in a particular way or having particular interests.

I enjoyed The Handmaid's Tale but I thought Cat's Eye was boring.

As someone who was bullied at school by my so-called 'best friends', Cats Eye spoke to me on so many different levels.

I think MA is a brilliant author, who is now displaying a disappointingly inaccurate understanding of biology. I don't respect her opinion, since it's woefully misinformed and I'd expect someone with her education and critical thinking skills to be better at grasping facts, but I certainly respect her right to express her views without feeling the need to hurl abuse or threats at her for doing so.

[quote CluelessBaker]@katrina11 I couldn’t agree more. I’ve also always wondered if the GC don’t realise that their absolute insistence that a persons sex is their defining characteristic aligns them much more closely with Gilead than with anyone who opposes it.[/quote]
Thing is, you're showing there that you're fundamentally misunderstanding both the Handmaid's Tale and what GC people think.

The whole point is that GC people think that sex shouldn't be allowed to define what you like or what you can do. Your immutable biological sex should not limit what you can do. So you can want to be a truck driver or a surgeon or a ballet dancer, you can like pink unicorns or Lego or model cars, whatever is in your pants.

Whereas in Gilead, sex=gender and absolutely defines what you can and cannot do. It's the opposite of gender critical.

[quote Bibijayne]@katrina11 agree. I suspect a great many people have not actually read the book.[/quote]
You’ve been very quiet on your own thread OP. Have you read the book?

I wonder how many feminists have tweeted her to ‘die in a grease fire’ and such like.....

Or what @TitOfTheIceberg said.

I did find myself wondering why the women of Gilead didn’t just self-identify as male.

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

I thought she was intelligent - but that garbage article she tweeted? then "slug sex"? FFS. So disappointing.