To think Margaret Atwood is amazing

[Bibijayne]

Just that really.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

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

We DEFINITELY need a Clownfish emoji!

[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 a ridiculous thing to say.

I’m GC and I believe that sex is biological fact, gender is a construct. That in no way makes me some sort of authoritarian lunatic.

Pretending that biological reality doesn’t exist because some people have a hard time dealing with it isn’t ‘open minded’, it’s batshit.

Maybe put The Emperor’s New Clothes on your reading list?

See I don't get how people can dismiss biology/reality, something as fundamental as sex being binary as just a different opinion. It's too big, the consequences too far reaching, to say "ahh, love and let live" about. It's something which firms the basis of laws and legislation. How can our sex and the definition of it be up for debate?

And yes, she may have put her head above the parapet but when you choose the side of biology-deniers on social media you can bet you won't be invited to "suck my lady dick" or "die in a grease fire you barren whore". Or have a silly little GP enrage his followers to turn up in your doorstep to frighten your kids. Or have PC Gul call you to chat about what your thinking .

Head above the parapet? Nah, it's a pretty safe move really.

Jaysus, just let the women write their books and have their opinions without calling them stupid or heroes.

The testaments was absolute horseshit

Nope. The Booker Prize should never have been shared. Evaristo was the superior writer in every way.

If this refers to her slug Twitter comment, she's even less than spectacular ...

See I don't get how people can dismiss biology/reality, something as fundamental as sex being binary as just a different opinion. It's too big, the consequences too far reaching, to say "ahh, love and let live" about. It's something which firms the basis of laws and legislation. How can our sex and the definition of it be up for debate?

Hear hear. You get to hold your own opinion, but your don't get your own set of facts.

I'd like to thank the poster who linked to the Guardian article on Margaret Atwood's thoughts on 'Me Too' - I was really struck by this observation: "In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.”

I’m GC and I believe that sex is biological fact, gender is a construct.

And this is what confuses me, as far as the TRA argument is concerned. This is what feminism, in general, has argued for aeons. The conflation between sex and gender wasn't our idea: the whole point of feminism is gender criticality. If it doesn't do this, then what's it for? Yet these days it's all seen as rad fem and that less than prepossessing acronym that begins with a T ...

I can imagine transwomen into the context of the Handmaid's Tale tbh.

If they passed well enough, and were well connected enough, why couldn't they be wives? I could easily imagine a commander taking an attractive transwoman as his "infertile" wife (may or may not be actually infertile, but no babies in any case) and then getting a handmaid to provide the offspring.

Margaret Atwood said that everything that happened in the Handmaid's Tale had already happened somewhere at sometime, and its not a stretch to imaging a TWAW alpha male engaging a surrogate for him and his transwife. Religious males are famously flexible as long as their own status is intact.

They wouldn't be handmaids though and fertile transmen would be sent to the Red Centre because at the end of the day, patriarchal cultures are shit hot at correctly identifying sex.

Christ, typos ahoy in my last post.

My apologies for intruding on your solipsis.

I’m going to assume you meant ‘solipsism’. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist, whereas anything outside one’s mind cannot be known for sure.

I’m not really sure how you think this is evidenced by me saying I have the right to pick and choose which posts I respond to? I assure you that just because I don’t respond to a particular post doesn’t mean I doubt that it exists. It truly is as simple as me only engaging with what I happen to find interesting or worthy of debate - something I would encourage all humans to do. Life is too short to waste time arguing about things one isn’t interested in.

Don’t let the bastards grind you down, folks .

I'm sure I read a report about a trans woman complaining that Atwood was exclusionary, because in a dystopia like Gilead the trans woman wouldn't have existed.

@sleepyhead

I can imagine transwomen into the context of the Handmaid's Tale tbh.

If they passed well enough, and were well connected enough, why couldn't they be wives? I could easily imagine a commander taking an attractive transwoman as his "infertile" wife (may or may not be actually infertile, but no babies in any case) and then getting a handmaid to provide the offspring.

Margaret Atwood said that everything that happened in the Handmaid's Tale had already happened somewhere at sometime, and its not a stretch to imaging a TWAW alpha male engaging a surrogate for him and his transwife. Religious males are famously flexible as long as their own status is intact.

They wouldn't be handmaids though and fertile transmen would be sent to the Red Centre because at the end of the day, patriarchal cultures are shit hot at correctly identifying sex.

This is so well put, I was trying to muddle together my thoughts on this and this is exactly it. Transwomen as a female-passing wife, absolutely. But biological fact (the same fact Atwood denied this morning) absolutely comes into play when we think about the handmaids because that’s what they’re good for. Why pretend otherwise?

It truly is as simple as me only engaging with what I happen to find interesting or worthy of debate

Apparently this strategy has led you to the erroneous assumption that GC feminists absolutely insist that a person's sex is their defining characteristic.

Perhaps it might be helpful if you engaged a bit more with all of the arguments, because you seem a bit confused.

Considering that in Gilead LGBT people are hanged for being “gender traitors” I think it’s pretty crazy that so many people are saying “what happens to trans women in Gilead” as if it’s some kind of gotcha.

Fertile trans men would likely be forced to be handmaids however, and forced to identify as a woman. If anything the handmaids tale should be discouraging people from reducing someone’s gender to their reproductive organs, but that’s a level of thought I’ve realised is far beyond the vocal minority who’ve taken over this site.

[quote Bibijayne]@MarkRuffaloCrumble

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are speaking for all of her readers... Majority of people I know who love and actively read Atwood are not GC. Perhaps it is just the circles and friendship groups you have? I think she has a pretty broad audience. In the same way that feminism is a broad spectrum encompassing a range of experiences.[/quote]
That’s because the majority of people you are friends with clearly hold the same views as you .

Anyway back to the thread. Personally, MA has long been a heroine of mine and I’m devastated that she’s come out with this crap (although it’s not new, she was sitting on the fence at least a year ago)

I’m amazed too. I’m amazed that a woman would tell other women that sex based right are bullshit because slug sex. As someone pointed out on Twitter, she’s trolling FGM survivors. The fact that she made her name on a book where the concept of biological sex as an immutable binary is absolutely central to the plot just makes it bizarre. She wrote that book not believing that sex exists and that June could just identify as a commander instead of all the elaborate escape plots. Not sure why Serena Joy didn’t just identify as fertile. Her tweets are amazingly nonsensical, ranging from “nobody is saying there aren’t men and women” to “slug sex, fish, spectrum, there is no binary” within minutes. You have to be a fertile woman to be a handmaid and there are no women. Absolutely bonkers.

Apparently this strategy has led you to the erroneous assumption that GC feminists absolutely insist that a person's sex is their defining characteristic.

I have seen plenty of evidence indicating that this is a very prevalent belief in the GC community. If you disagree, fine - not all GC people share the same views, and no one speaks for all.

Her next book is all about Slugs- And how one set of slugs, dominates the other set of slugs.

It will be absolutely riveting, in a sluggish kind of way.

She wrote that book not believing that sex exists and that June could just identify as a commander instead of all the elaborate escape plots.

It’s worth point out once again that Gilead is Atwood’s idea of a dystopia. The fact that transwomen wouldn’t have been recognised as women or transmen recognised as men in Gilead isn’t an indication that Atwood thinks they aren’t women and men respectively. It’s an indication that in the deeply oppressive, patriarchal hierarchy of the world she had created for that novel, trans women weren’t recognised as women or trans men as men because the structure of that society was based (in part) on division by sex.

The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t a manifesto.

If anything the handmaids tale should be discouraging people from reducing someone’s gender to their reproductive organs, but that’s a level of thought I’ve realised is far beyond the vocal minority who’ve taken over this site.

If you bothered to read what was written on this site you would realise that gc feminists think gender is bollocks. The clue is in the name. 'Gender critical'.

Yes I agree that trans men would also be forced to be handmaidens, because nobody cares about identity when they are directly discriminating against women.

They also don't care about identity when they are indirectly discriminating against women, by not providing services and protections that men don't need.

How is this so difficult to understand? You can't abolish sexism (or protect gay or trans rights) by pretending sex doesn't exist.

When the Garrick club accepts that TMAM
When the East India Club accepts that TMAM
When White's and the Traveller's accept that TMAM
When Boodle's and Brooks's in St James' accept that TMAM
then I might start to believe that TWAW is anything other than misogyny

If anything the handmaids tale should be discouraging people from reducing someone’s gender to their reproductive organs, but that’s a level of thought I’ve realised is far beyond the vocal minority

I don’t “reduce someone’s gender to their reproductive organs” whatever that might mean. I know that someone’s sex can be identified with a high degree of accuracy by their reproductive organs. That doesn’t mean they are reduced to their organs and only the disingenuous could possibly think it does.

I also know that gender is a hierarchy of oppression that has men being logical and well paid at the top and women being ditsy and making sandwiches at the bottom. It’s a social tool of patriarchy and anyone who “identifies” with gender or “reduces themselves to gender” or has a “gender identity” is a fucking idiot. The idea that if your genitals don’t match the wholly constructed gender role stereotypes assigned to your sex then you are literally the opposite sex and should have surgery to untrap you from YOUR OWN BODY is both laughable and monstrous.