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.

Hooting at the idea that a diagram is "shallow", the purpose of it in the first instance is to simplify things not give an in depth analysis or be perfect in that analysis to cover all nuances.

As to anyone thinking they are "clever" and more "open minded" for posting it

Oversimplification of complex issues into easily shared social media images is exactly what has lead to the tribalism that is now blighting society.

Where does simplification fit into this as opposed to oversimplification?

@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.

It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis. As others have already said, it's supposed to be a simplification. I've posted it in the past as a rebuttal to those who say that feminists are no different from right wing religious people which is a lazy and incorrect over simplification. The whole point of it is to say: 'it's more complicated than that' as a starting point about where the differences and similarities between the groups lie.

As HecatesCats points out, religious people are sometimes on board with trans ideology because of their homophobia and/or belief in gender stereotypes. (I'm not saying that all religious people are homophobic, but there's no doubt that some are.) So it would be just as easy (and wrong) to say that believers in trans ideology are no different from religious conservatives.

'Cleverer and open-minded'? Once again I think you're misinterpreting the arguments on here. I'm certainly not trying to be 'clever', but I do believe that feminists debating on here are the most open-minded of those three groups, because we are looking for evidence and making an effort to understand why people think differently. The 'no debate' proponents of trans ideology don't appear to do any of this, nor do some conservative/religious groups with their narrow minded beliefs - something else that those groups have in common.

So it would be just as easy (and wrong) to say that believers in trans ideology are no different from religious conservatives

So why not say "religious conservatives"?

Conservative as one of you has already pointed out is a very broad category.

@stumbledin

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.

Well said stumbld

The very religious American conservatives - the fundamentalists, who are not a small factor in American politics - are gender=sex essentialists.

Well said - it's this group of conservatives that has strict stereotypes of what is a woman and is very homophobic (campaigning against marriage equality). I have hopes the left will be more open to listen to women's shelters, LBG Alliance and Save Women's Sports.

@DidoLamenting

So it would be just as easy (and wrong) to say that believers in trans ideology are no different from religious conservatives

So why not say "religious conservatives"?

Conservative as one of you has already pointed out is a very broad category.

"One of you?" That damned mob with their Venn diagrams. You must hate people with MBAs.

"One of you?" That damned mob with their Venn diagrams. You must hate people with MBAs

What on earth are you on about? Seriously are you throwing a tantrum because I didn't name who made that point that conservative covers a broad range , which was presumably made by you? Good grief.

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.

Even fundamentalists or conservative American Christians covers a pretty wide group of people. The one who think all the "gender stereotypes" are somehow intrinsic and ought to be followed are a minority even there. People like the Duggers who had that crazy tv show fall into that group - but they are sects.

It's true that many religious conservatives of that type would argue that more things are intrinsic behaviours attached to sex than many radical feminists think are. But the limits of that aren't even agreed upon by feminists. And they might also argue that certain social structures around family life are useful, or natural, or socially stabilising. But again, those are points argued even among feminists. It's not so clearly a matter of a totally different perspective some much as a question of where you draw the line, or what you see as useful.

There are quite a lot of conservative evangelical Christian women who wear pants, earn a good living in a significant job, and consider themselves important voices within their communities.

It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis. As others have already said, it's supposed to be a simplification. I've posted it in the past as a rebuttal to those who say that feminists are no different from right wing religious people which is a lazy and incorrect over simplification. The whole point of it is to say: 'it's more complicated than that' as a starting point about where the differences and similarities between the groups lie.

It's a little misleading is the issue. I know what they mean when they say that conservatives believe in gender stereotypes. Even if we totally ignore the libertarian types of conservatives though, that's not particularly true.

People post that diagram trying to show where radical feminists and conservatives supposedly overlap (or not), but I don't think you really get a good sense of that from the diagram.

I think it's quite clear, and useful.

Most mainstream people in the modern world agree that wearing pants, working, and having a voice in the community are perfectly acceptable for women, indeed there's few who'd even think to question it, unlike 60 years ago. That just goes to show how culturally mutable concepts of 'gender' are, but it doesnt mean concepts of gender have disappeared

@Goosefoot

It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis. As others have already said, it's supposed to be a simplification. I've posted it in the past as a rebuttal to those who say that feminists are no different from right wing religious people which is a lazy and incorrect over simplification. The whole point of it is to say: 'it's more complicated than that' as a starting point about where the differences and similarities between the groups lie.

It's a little misleading is the issue. I know what they mean when they say that conservatives believe in gender stereotypes. Even if we totally ignore the libertarian types of conservatives though, that's not particularly true.

People post that diagram trying to show where radical feminists and conservatives supposedly overlap (or not), but I don't think you really get a good sense of that from the diagram.

It's not why I've posted it, as I said in my post that you've quoted. All I've tried to do with it is to deflect the accusation that feminists are 'just like right wing religious people' (or some other group that they try to compare us to through a misinterpretation of our concerns about trans ideology).

But I have found the comments about it that you and others on this thread have made are informative, since they have shown me how the message I thought the diagram was putting across quite clearly and succinctly can be totally misunderstood.

It's not why I've posted it, as I said in my post that you've quoted. All I've tried to do with it is to deflect the accusation that feminists are 'just like right wing religious people' (or some other group that they try to compare us to through a misinterpretation of our concerns about trans ideology).

But if the description is kind of fudging the difference, than does it really show that?

I mean, to me, the statement that they are the same is just clearly wrong, and probably not honest, at least from someone over 20. Anyone can see that the two groups differ significantly on a number of issues, and there is no need to unpack the origins of those differences to show it.

As far as it goes, it's try that radfems and religious conservatives generally both see the body as real, and that accounts for a lot of their overlap on this. There are probably some other similarities around thinking about class groupings as well, as opposued to a liberal/individualist perspective.
But I don't think that characterisation of the difference, which you want to show, is something many conservatives would recognise, and presumably the people who are looking at the diagram could be aware of that. So it doesn't especially show them that there is a difference, that is what is most likely to be in dispute. The response could easily be "That's not really a conservative position, so what is this difference you are saying this shows?