Rebecca Solnit's latest column

[RoyalCorgi]

I have a soft spot for Rebecca Solnit because of her essay "Men explain things to me", which recounts the story of a man at a social gathering lecturing her on a topic she'd just published a book about.

But she has just written the most tediously woke piece for the Guardian headed "Coronavirus does discriminate, because that’s what humans do".

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-discriminate-humans-racism-sexism-inequality

Talking about how coronavirus affects men and women differently, she writes:

"Cisgender men were more likely to die from the virus, which seemed to be about inherent vulnerabilities of those with XY chromosomes."

Why can't she see how clunky that phrase, "cisgender men" is? What she means is "men". (Imagine if her famous essay had been titled "Cisgender men explain things to me".) The virus affects biological men more than biological women, so if she wanted to use the appropriately woke terminology and be accurate, she should have written "cisgender men and trans women".

And didn't the Guardian decide to stop using "cis"?

She goes on to talk about women - not cisgender women - in the same paragraph. I wonder if someone at the Guardian added on the 'cisgender' bit?

There's actually a legitimate case for a 'but what about the transwomen?' query here. She says that the virus disproportionately affects people with XY chromosomes, but only talks about 'cisgender men'. What about all the trans and nonbinary folks with XY chromosomes? Not very woke to bring up gender and then leave them out...

Of course, any sensible person would have just written men or males.

I also noted her comment that sewing doesn't have an 'inherent gender'. How very true. Neither does anything or anyone else. I'm sure someone who knew that their love of sewing revealed their inner womanly essence despite their pesky XY chromosomes would disagree, though. I can think of at least one who enjoys performative needlework.

The comment about sewing is one I found really irritating, Miriel. I mean, yes, it's true that most of the people sewing the masks are women rather than men. On the other hand, if we needed, I dunno, shelves or tables or something that required woodworking skills, it would probably be men doing the bulk of it. Not because woodwork is inherently male, but because it's something that far more men than women have learnt how to do because we live in an inherently sexist society.

I'm as feminist as they come and yet I found myself feeling sorry for men reading the article, which is quite an achievement. The virus is killing far more men than women, but she still manages to make the piece a whine about how hard done by women are.

There's actually a legitimate case for a 'but what about the transwomen?' query here
That is a very good point Miriel
'Cis' gender men and transwomen belong to the same biological and therefore medical class of males.

You're right. I was just picking up on the logical inconsistencies of believing in genderism but then complaining that men aren't doing enough of an activity that doesn't fit in their gender box. Practically, though, I agree with you. Activities aren't innately gendered, but they're culturally gendered. Feminists have been challenging that for a very long time - but the middle of a pandemic isn't the time to start criticising people for not doing things that they've probably been told all their lives aren't for them.

I definitely know men on Reddit who have been making masks and sharing tutorials. Your comparison to woodworking is a good one - if it were necessary the way masks are now and I lived alone, I'd teach myself to do it. As it is, a man in my household is already very good at it, having done it for decades. It'd be quicker for him to do it and the end product would likely be better. Sexist? Maybe. Sensible in a crisis situation? I'd say so.

Solnit can be interesting. She can also make the most monumentally stupid claims. (As evidenced by some of the assertions in 'The Mother of all questions', in which she makes extensive comprison between writing a book and having a child, despite having done only the former. I forget the details, but I do remember abandoning the book quite quickly as so much waffle.)

She goes on to talk about women - not cisgender women - in the same paragraph

even the most ardent proponents of this twaddle find it hard to keep it up

Taking care of each other starts with understanding this

It is a factor but 'starts with' It clearly is not the most important thing here.

I think the bio sex aspects of the pandemic is causing a lot of cognitive dissonance in some quarters. I think they'll get there in time, but it's quite painful watching them trying to hold onto "sex assigned at birth" and "coronavirus doesn't care how you identify" at the same time.

" I think the bio sex aspects of the pandemic is causing a lot of cognitive dissonance in some quarters. I think they'll get there in time, but it's quite painful watching them trying to hold onto "sex assigned at birth" and "coronavirus doesn't care how you identify" at the same time."

Agree with this and there has been some wonky thinking on this board as well as elsewhere.
It takes time to figure out what, if anything!, it means that the virus strikes men harder. To be honest I don't think it means anything, I think people have just been force to write about it and to try to wrangle some unnatural link with their usual political writings....