The Sunday Times - StrawMaid's Tale

[Melroses]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/culture/margaret-atwood-the-handmaids-tale-author-on-her-new-poems-qqpc9xmf5?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1604837071

twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1325411735226945541
"There’s a difference between belief and fact...You can believe all you like that trans people aren’t people, but it happens not to be a fact. It's not true that there are only two boxes."
@MargaretAtwood speaks to @ST_Culture

Has anyone a spare share token? I have run out of my week's free articles already.

You can believe all you like that trans people aren’t people

Who the bloody hell thinks this?! I see it claimed to have been said a lot, yet have never seen anyone actually say it. Same as 'you think transpeople don't exist'

Just such a ridiculous way to argue. Try taking on what people actually say, which will be along the lines of 'men are not women' or 'male violence is a real thing' or 'single sex spaces should remain single sex', or 'womens rights should be for WOMEN, else they are not womens rights'. Much harder to argue against that, so lets instead pretend that people who think sex segregation should remain are instead saying transpeople are all evil demons who do not even exist in this dimension, or something equally stupid.

Thanks for the background Goose

So disappointing! So OfFred should have just identified as Fred and then she could have identified out of being a handmaid. Somehow dont think Gilead would have fallen for identity politics when it comes to rape and forced surrogacy.

My take on what's happened in Canada is different to Goose's. I am a rural Canadian, one of the few in my family to get a university education and move away to the big cities, and then finally overseas. I am liberal, but my family is split between city-dwelling working class liberals and rural, get-off-my-land libertarians. Most of us work in the trades in one form or another. (I'm the exception.)

What I see happening in Canada is that they are watching the US, and as they always have they are backing away from what the Americans are doing and choosing a different path. (Scotland does this with England as well.) During Trump's reign, the needle swung so far against Canada's fairly middle-of-the-road progressivism that some people (including Atwood) went a bit nuts. Given that the Trump administration is now encouraging their followers to ignore the election result and throw out their democratic process to allow him to remain in power, I do not see many urban Canadians backing down on Wokeness soon. The activity over the border is too horrific to let them relax just yet.

Rural Canadians are a different bunch. Lots of them are quite resentful of what they regard as big shot city environmentalists telling them not to drill in the tar sands, or cut down old growth forest, when the city people are only likely to ever visit those places once a year on vacation. Note that this doesn't mean that the rural folks are right that drilling in the tar sands is a great idea, but a little recognition that they work in the resource-based industries that underpin a lot of the national economy would be nice.

But the narcissism of small differences exists among the rural "anti-Wokes", too. I was stunned to see a family member (evangelical Christian, lifelong conservative) denounce Trump for being a terrible example to Christians, only to have his own social circle turn on him and with no attempt at reasonable conversation, insist that Biden is JUST as bad on every measure and a traitor to boot. They were pretty nasty to him about it, too. So much for "Christian" behaviour!

The horseshoe theory is real, folks.

So this is interesting, from that 2006 interview in the Irish Independent (thanks for the link, Clymene):

“I will tell you what Canadians like to do, particularly if they're from the Maritimes," she smirks, not admitting to anything, least of all that she is playing with me as she might tease a kitten with a ball of wool.

"They like to tell you completely outrageous lies with a totally straight face; and they will go on with that until you either catch them out or they are overcome with guilt or pity and tell you the truth."

Maybe she and many of her fellow genderist Canadians are just playing a good old game of telling whoppers with a straight face and seeing how long they can keep it up? Certainly seems that way some days. Most days.

I have to say, any Brit accusing Canadians of just winding people up is a bit rich. If anything, we're an embarrassingly earnest people. (Though I accept that the Newfies I think she's alluding to in that quote are pretty distinctive.)

@Delphinium20

I've always liked her writing, but Atwood makes no sense whatsoever in this piece. However, like the PP, I do worry that radical feminism has made deals with the fundamentalist Christians. That won't end well.

I have the same worries.

I think the Venn diagram shared before is misleading. By cherry picking on the traditionally left side Trans Ideology vs Feminism, both effectively single-focus movements, and comparing to Conservative/Religious on the traditionally right which has a far wider agenda, it creates a false impression of how much common ground there is. I think if you redrew it with the groups of "People who hold (2nd wave) feminist views, People who hold Trans Ideology views and People who hold Conservative/Religious views, and opened it up not just to sex/gender but other social rights and protections, you'd find a huge alignment between the first two and very little with the third.

I think the way forward is to find and build on that common ground, not align with groups who agree with us about sex vs gender but only because they are very clear which sex/gender should be pretty, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

“The most bothersome thing about me,” she explains, “is that I’m a strict agnostic. By which I mean there’s a difference between belief and fact. And you should not confuse the two. You can believe all you like that trans people aren’t people, but it happens not to be a fact. It is not true that there are only two [gender] boxes. So the two questions to ask about anything are: is it true? And is it fair ? So if it’s not true that there are only two gender boxes and that gender is fixed and immutable, is it fair to treat trans people as if they’re not who they say they are?”

And I used to think she was intelligent.

She might simply be intelligent but mendacious for those areas that suit her.

"Given that the Trump administration is now encouraging their followers to ignore the election result and throw out their democratic process to allow him to remain in power"

Not a fan of Trump but that's not what he's doing.

Atwood's ridiculous statements make me really glad that I gave up on reading THT once I got to the rape scene. It just striked me as misery por.

porn*

I think the Venn diagram shared before is misleading. By cherry picking on the traditionally left side Trans Ideology vs Feminism, both effectively single-focus movements, and comparing to Conservative/Religious on the traditionally right which has a far wider agenda, it creates a false impression of how much common ground there is.

I think you've misunderstood what the Venn diagram is illustrating. It's only about gender. It's not meant to be extended to anything else.

It shows that trans ideology has as much in common with conservative views (gender is innate) as it does with feminism (gender doesn't have to match your sex). The overlap between feminism and conservative views is only on the scientific matter of sex being immutable.

It's those who believe in trans ideology who share many ideological views with the conservatives/religious extremists, so could be said to be 'aligning with' them. They all believe in innate gender, and it's just in terms of what should be done about it that they differ, with one group advocating changing the mind, the other the body. (With feminists standing on the sidelines saying that gender is an oppressive construct that we'd all be better off without, so just be who you are.)

I think you've misunderstood what the Venn diagram is illustrating. It's only about gender. It's not meant to be extended to anything else.

Yes, I get that. My point is that is a superficial intellectual exercise which is valid in abstraction, but we live in a real, messy world and repeating that abstraction as it is in this thread to justify standing shoulder by shoulder with people who despise feminism is short sighted and dangerous.

Look for allies in the people who share your fundamental values but are different on one interpretation of those values, not people who have very different fundamental values but have a superficial alignment on one issue.

To be clear, I'm not talking about TRA here, but the many left-leaning people whose values of acceptance and open-mindedness make them sympathetic to trans people and aren't aware that TWAW also results in the negation and disempowerment of (biological) Female as a meaningful class of people.

It's those who believe in trans ideology who share many ideological views with the conservatives/religious extremists, so could be said to be 'aligning with' them. They all believe in innate gender, and it's just in terms of what should be done about it that they differ, with one group advocating changing the mind, the other the body.

I don't agree that they're advocating different approaches. There are a number of high profile cases of devoutly Christian parents who when confronted with a gender non-conforming child have gone down the transition route:

'As early as 18 months old, Kimberly Shappley's son started showing signs he identified as female. Now, the Christian mom shares how she learned to embrace Kai's transition — for her child's happiness and safety.'

www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/

The story is painted as a Christian mother going against the grain in her community and embracing LGBTQ, but the reality behind it is that the mother confessed to hitting her child for potentially being gay and researched gay conversion therapy before the decision was reached that the child was trans. There's more about the family in this video:

The denial that this child might be gay suggests to me that there are those on the Christian Right who embrace changing bodies if it means having a daughter, rather than a gay, feminine presenting son.

That is certainly the approach taken in Iran.

repeating that abstraction as it is in this thread to justify standing shoulder by shoulder with people who despise feminism is short sighted and dangerous.

There's nothing 'shoulder to shoulder' about it. there are just small areas of overlap - all the way round. Of course it's a simplification - but frankly anyone who implies feminists are in anyway in some sort of pact with the 'Christian right' seems in need of that. I don't mean you - you're overanalysing it.

I am wondering if Atwood a bit like Doris Lessing doesn't like being classified as a feminist because they both see / saw themselves as sort of unique individuals, so resent it being suggested others have had the same ideas.

And also of course feminism gets such a trashing in the media that to protect their "brand" of being unique and not part of some hideous band of harpies they have / did make statements that clearly differentiate themselves from (radical feminism).

Also, please stop talking about gender critical feminists aligning with the right.

There have been occassions when to get a public platform feminists have shared a platform with people / groups whose thinking they dont share but felt the issue of protecting young women from being pushed down the path of transing was important enough, that to have the platform was the priority.

And all those taking this moral high ground, dont forget we are all reduced to reading right wing papers in the UK because the liberal left papers will not give gender critical voices a platform. If it wasn't for some quite horrible right wing papers publishing the stories of detransitioning it would not be in the public domain in the way that it is.

Many women on the left who put their purity male party politics above everything, have in fact demonstrated that in making their "bros" their priority they stand back and do not for instance publicly support groups of mothers trying to save their daughters. In other words to preserve their (male) political purity they are happy to abandon women to the trans thuggery.

I do think that UK conservatives and US conservatives are quite different and in the US at least, aligning w/ any US conservative means you've just lost your audience of left-leaning openminded people you could possibly convince that women's rights are at risk with trans ideology. There is pretty severe partisanship over here. While I'm pro-choice, I personally argued that the Women's March should allow the pro-life feminist group to march (weren't they women and what a great place for them to meet other feminists??!?), but that was shut down fast. I'm just being realistic.

Love all the insight into Canadian feminism @Singasonga!!

@DidoLamenting

Probably one of the few places they have seen it might be Jordan Peterson making the presentation to Parliament, and they think he is a crazy fascist - they'll not have listened to what he said

If they saw that they will probably have seen Theryn Meyer , who is trans but also opposed C-16. Meyer is right wing so her right wing views will have cancelled out the fact she is trans so she won't have been listened to either.

Yes, they may have, though I think Peterson was a little more visible in the media around that issue. Most didn't see Murphy present either.

I actually think the whole "conservatives believe gender is innate" thing is a little shallow. So while that diagram maybe has some use, it's limited. The overlaps or shared values are a little more complex.

Singasonga I don't disagree at all that liberal Canadians in many ways are responding to what they think is going on in the US. My point though, from that perspective, is that they still have no serious understanding of the issues or even what the arguments are. I would agree that rural Canada, particularly in parts of the west, resents that. I don't know that many see gender ideology as very relevant in their lives though, and someone like Atwood would not have much interaction with people like that.

The telling a story with a straight face thing is very much part of my cultural experience, I'm on the east coast, though not in Newfoundland, so maybe that's really where it's a thing.

Goosefoot

I actually think the whole "conservatives believe gender is innate" thing is a little shallow. So while that diagram maybe has some use, it's limited. The overlaps or shared values are a little more complex

I think it's extremely shallow. I don't think the diagram does much beyond radical feminists giving themselves a pat on the back that they are so much cleverer and open- minded than the other 2 sectors.

@DidoLamenting

Goosefoot

I actually think the whole "conservatives believe gender is innate" thing is a little shallow. So while that diagram maybe has some use, it's limited. The overlaps or shared values are a little more complex

I think it's extremely shallow. I don't think the diagram does much beyond radical feminists giving themselves a pat on the back that they are so much cleverer and open- minded than the other 2 sectors.

"Conservative" covers quite a range of views these days. Who would have imagined, for example, that many people calling themselves "conservatives" in 2020 would base that mainly on being anti-government and anti-governing institution. (Hint: not Benjamin Disraeli, that's for sure.) That branch of conservatism, economically/politically libertarian & socially conservative used to be primarily an American phenomenon. It's been weird to see the current iteration of the British Tory Party suddenly start railing against British institution representing the judiciary and legislature, which is about as anti a British conservatism stance as it's possible to take barring turning against the Crown itself.

The very religious American conservatives - the fundamentalists, who are not a small factor in American politics - are gender=sex essentialists. Pretending they're not is as silly as left-leaning people insisting that the Wokes don't exist.

Conservative" covers quite a range of views these days

By your own post the "conservative" sector of the Venn diagram might just as well be called "people who disagree with feminists "

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in the British Conservative Party