To think Margaret Atwood is amazing

[Bibijayne]

Just that really.

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.

And again. What is it you don't understand about sex based rights, exactly?

I think it’s quite obvious it would be better not to divide at all...

Do you acknowledge that violent crime and sex crime is committed overwhelmingly by one sex?

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.

You don't understand what they are saying, is the problem here. No GC person thinks women should be defined by their sex in terms of personality and life path. Not one.

Yes, it's disappointing and it does make me think a bit less of her tbh. I feel... a bit embarrassed for her.

But anyway, that's separate from the work which I love and will continue to love (although The Testaments felt a bit hasty and driven by the tv series which jarred a bit)

Cat's Eye was also really meaningful to me as a teenager and I loved The Robber Bride and The Edible Woman.

Did you "strenuously object" to people saying that about JK Rowling, too?

Yes, very much so.

Don’t you mean you feel perfectly entitled to challenge anyone who treats someone as a certain gender? After all gender is sexism. Therefore you must be transphobic,

I truly cannot make sense of this word salad. The hanging comma suggests you posted too soon, so perhaps if you finish the comment it will make sense.

And once more for everyone at the back. Trans people couldn’t self identify as commanders. They’d be hanged for being a gender traitor.

Where are you standing? In a wind tunnel? We know that its impossible to identify out of the consequences of sex. It never has been. Most people understand that without reading The Handmaids' Tale. As MA pointed out, nothing she wrote about hasn't already happened.

Sexism is gender, gender is sexism. You cannot have gender without treating people differently according to their sex. Transwomen want to be ‘treated like a women’. They don’t mean biologically because they are men so demand that biological differences are ignored. Which means they want sexism to exist, they want men and women to be treated differently by society.

The transphobic bit was being facetious. The comma was a typo.

I’m baffled by the number of people who seem to think that a work of fiction exactly describes the author’s way of thinking.

The Handmaid’s Tale was set in a fictional world. She took inspiration from real events and societies, but the world she created in the book doesn’t have to match the beliefs in her own head.

Gilead has a very strict sex segregated system. Does that mean that Margaret Atwood believes in that system? Or believes that people should be segregated by sex? Of course not.

I mean fgs, I’m the author of a published piece of fiction about an alien invasion. And weirdly, that doesn’t mean I think aliens ever have or ever will invade the earth. Doesn’t mean I want them to. Doesn’t mean I’d be happy with the way my aliens behaved when they invaded my fictional earth, if they did it in real life.

When you write, you put your characters in a situation, and think, “What if...?” You can create worlds and people that make your skin crawl, if you so wish.

I can’t understand why some posters think Margaret Atwood has had a “personality change” because she expresses views different to those contained within her work of fiction

truly cannot make sense of this word salad. The hanging comma suggests you posted too soon, so perhaps if you finish the comment it will make sense.

When you can't understand a basic concept like "gender critical", I wouldn't be lecturing others on how to post.

Here's a clue. The US Christian Right may disagree with transgenderism but they are not "gender critical". ISIS may disagree with transgenderism but they are not "gender critical". Gender critical means gender abolitionist. Recognition that gender is a prison. Many radical feminists originally supported trans activism.

Thinking that a baby girl is a boy because she pulls out her hair slides - gender identity ideology not gender critical

Thinking that exclusively same sex attraction is immoral - gender identity ideology not gender critical

Women need sex based rights where their sex matters - gender critical not gender identity ideology

If women had sex based rights in Gilead - no Handmaids Tale

When you can't understand a basic concept like "gender critical", I wouldn't be lecturing others on how to post.

Here's a clue. The US Christian Right may disagree with transgenderism but they are not "gender critical". ISIS may disagree with transgenderism but they are not "gender critical". Gender critical means gender abolitionist. Recognition that gender is a prison. Many radical feminists originally supported trans activism.

I don’t see where anything that I have precipitates this elaboration. I think you’re possibly confusing me with a different poster?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/relief-for-weekend-drinkers-as-mobile-urinals-are-installed-5364564.html

Mobile urinals are now in Covent Garden.

I can't use them. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my identity. It is all because I lack the requisite body part to use a urinal because of my sex.

I would imagine that many gender dysphoric people would also avoid using a public urinal, perhaps for the same reason, perhaps because they would find the idea of urinating in public horrifying.

Nevertheless, I can't use these urinals. To discuss the reason I can't use these urinals, I need to talk about sex.

You don't need to create Gilead to discriminate against women. All you need to do is ignore the consequences of sex, whether that is ignoring a woman's need for contraception, or her need for a safety belt that fits. Its much easier to ignore sex if you can pretend that sex doesn't exist. The reason for creating a situation where women suffer indirect discrimination doesn't have to be a need to oppress. Perhaps it's just a desire to save money. I still can't fight sex based oppression if I can't talk about sex.

You think gender critical people believe you are defined by your sex. They do not. They believe that biology matters, but it's not your destiny. And has nothing to do with your personality. You simply do not understand what they are saying. Transgenderism is the opposite of a progressive movement.

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.

Precisely.

[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]
Nobody has confused you with another poster.

GC feminists don't advocate doing away with biological sex because we don't like the gender roles. It's the other way around.

If we cannot talk about the existence of the female sex as a class then we are unable to name it or fight sex-based oppression and the oppressive imposition of gender roles and discrimination on the basis of our sex.

And again for anyone who is confused.

@Aesopfable I just wrote out a massive response to you and then accidentally deleted it. I don’t have the heart to type it out again, sorry. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I obviously don’t agree but I now understand the point you were making. I might come back after my walk and see if I can face recreating my deleted essay.

I think it’s quite obvious it would be better not to divide at all...

Do you acknowledge that violent crime and sex crime is committed overwhelmingly by one sex?

I really would be interested to hear your response to this, @Clueless

Trans people couldn’t self identify as commanders. They’d be hanged for being a gender traitor.

Wrong. Since being 'trans' is a matter of self-declaration, most adult males currently claiming 'trans' status would simply stop doing so. And of course few would want to claim it in the future - they'd keep any such desires to themselves.

It's only transsexuals who would have been executed as 'gender traitors', since many would be unable to reverse the physical changes to their bodies - although some could probably go back to passing as male.

See my post above about the difference between behaviour (gender non-conformity) and immutable characteristics (sex).

I just read the Scientific American Article that Atwood referenced
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
and it FUNDAMENTALLY misrepresents the science

the fact that many people are Chimeric does NOT make the division between X and Y an infinite variety

and she does not have enough scientific literacy to recognise that.

She should stick to fiction

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.

You can have an opinion about subjects where there isn't a specific answer, where there is debate. You cannot have a legitimate opinion on something where there is no debate. You can't say, well in my opinion badgers are amphibians, because you'd be taking absolute rubbish. So why do we accept people having an opinion on something as fundamental as human biology?!

It's lunacy.

‘Do you acknowledge that violent crime and sex crime is committed overwhelmingly by one 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?

My point was that Gilead is a dystopia because it uses sex as a means of determining who can hold what positions, have certain privileges, etc. Someone then asked if it would be better if this division were on the basis of gender. When I said it would be better if there were no division at all, 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.

I doubt you disagree with this position? It’s basically the founding principle behind all human rights.

From the article:

"More energy must be devoted as well to researching how diseases affect the sexes differently—and to adapting medical treatments to women's needs".

What would this even mean if sex doesn't matter?

Wrong. Since being 'trans' is a matter of self-declaration, most adult males currently claiming 'trans' status would simply stop doing so. And of course few would want to claim it in the future - they'd keep any such desires to themselves.

It's only transsexuals who would have been executed as 'gender traitors', since many would be unable to reverse the physical changes to their bodies - although some could probably go back to passing as male.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure the Pip Bunces of this world would pretty quickly cease 'identifying as a woman' (ie. Wearing a dress and heels to the office) on Tuesdays and Fridays. Philip would be back full time!

Meanwhile, women wouldn't be able to identify out of having a vagina and female reproductive system.