Eve: a new book about female evolutionary biology

[RoyalCorgi]

This new book looks so promising. It's by an American writer called Cat Bohannon, and it's about the evolutionary history of female biology and all the unique ways in which women's bodies have evolved. To quote from the Guardian review: "Over hundreds of thousands of years, women have developed more sensitive noses (particularly around ovulation and pregnancy), finer hearing at high frequencies, extended colour vision, and longer life expectancy than men by an impressive half decade."

Bohannon seems impressive too. Again, from the review "Bohannon calls on her astounding disciplinary range to tell this epic tale. Her writing ripples with references from literature, film studies, biochemistry, cognitive science and anthropology."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Exactly the kind of book I would love reading. At this point in the review I was ready to rush out and buy it. And then there was this:

"She is bold when speaking against abortion restrictions, the gender wage gap, sex essentialism (“it’s clear that trans women are women”) and chastity laws."

Ah yes. It's a book about all the biological differences between men and women that have evolved over millions of years - but apparently it's "clear" that trans women are women. How is it clear that some men are actually women? How does that work? Any explanation? Because it's not clear to me.

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel I'm at the point where I can no longer stand the stupidity. How does someone who, according to the review, knows about biochemistry, literature, film studies and anthropology come to the moronic conclusion that men can be women? Just how is it possible to make an assertion that dim - an assertion that undermines all your own research, which has probably taken you years? Is it really the case someone this knowledgeable and intelligent is so in thrall to fashion that she is prepared to make a statement that is utterly, ludicrously moronic? Does she have no thought about her professional reputation?

[[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/10/eve-how-female-body-drove-200-million-years-of-human-evolution-by-cat-bohannon-review

Comments are open but there are none.

I read that too. It started off so promising and then went down that bizarre route.
It's like someone writing an amazing science-based book about the origin of stars and the universe and then plopping in an assertion that of course our fates are governed by star signs.
Except instead of star signs, it's a belief in gender stereotyping being innate. So weird.

That's such a shame. It sounded really interesting until then.

It's a real disappointment when this happens. I was recently schooled by a person with an honor degree in entomology on the flawless logic of the trans debate. I cannot understand how anyone who understands the world of natural science can so easily sacrifice their thinking. I mean, what do you say to such obvious crap? Once she started shouting, I repeated I don't agree and left to pack the dishwasher. We were at a big gathering and I needed a ride home with her haha. And besides, there's no arguing a belief with reason. It's the very nature of belief

There is a an extensive look inside on the US Amazon which gives you a flavour of Bohannon's approach (just in case you thought it might be the reviewer's take): https://read.amazon.com/sample/B0BR51FB12?f=2&l=enUS&r=f5eb8306&rid=TJ9K4MJZWGDNMPA97ZM3&sid=138-7598272-2456855&ref_=litb_m

Are you denying the existence of pansexual non binary greenfly? Sorry PP, it's so hard when supposedly bright people have let their thinking go so wonky.

With people like this, I always try to get them to define their terms of reference and definitions, instead of talking over each other over our mutually exclusive versions of 'woman' or 'trans'.

That's how I realised my partner didn't really mean that cross-dressers should be treated exactly the same as women. Cos he missed the Stonewall memo that trans means anything you want it to.

Just shows that you can't frigging trust the opinions of anyone. People can have phds up the wazoo and can and do talk shite.

You can't take anyone's opinion as truth, you have to drill down into a subject and also read opposing views, no matter how forboeden. It's a lot of work to actually have an informed view on anything.

But the BBC tells the truth on everything according to most people.

"This is how the dinosaurs evolved, and other species from that, however it's clear that the world was created by God a few thousand years ago."

It's exactly like that, isn't it? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I watched two people with PhDs in biological sciences justify calling somebody transphobic for stating there are only two sexes. They cited DSDs as evidence that there are more than two sexes.

Obviously none of them explained how Disorders of normal sexual development account for XX people identifying as XY people but hey.

Not the only people in the biological sciences I've watched deny biological reality. (I work in STEM, I know a lot of biologists).

So TWAW but

‘A modern woman’s brain is not constructed from genetic instructions alone, untouched by the world in which she lives: “It takes a whole girlhood in a sexist environment to build a brain like that.” ‘

I just had a look at the review in the Observer/Guardian website and.....just sayin'....comments seem to be open....

I'm with you OP about not being able to stand the stupidity. It's more than disappointing. It's a betrayal.

I downloaded the kindle sample of a book called Hagitiude by Sharon Blackie. I've heard her speak on a couple of podcasts and she sounds a wise and sensible sort, who has made a career about writing about women. Hagitude is about understanding the menopause as the gateway to the next phase of life, and finding positive, empowering role models for older women in mythology and folk tales and using them as a springboard for discovering new perspectives on women in older age. I started to read and thought it was so up my street I'd skip the sample and go straight to buy the book, when I came across the sentence 'all those who identify as women - these old folk tales are not in the business of excluding' in the introduction.

Way to undermine your whole argument, right there. No thanks.

I posted a comment on the article - any bets that it gets taken down shortly? The only existing comment thanked the Graun for the review. Mine said: "“It’s clear that trans women are women”. Not at all clear to me or many other biological women if by "essentialism" she means biological reality. She refers to graves - isn't it essentialist that skeletal remains are pretty clear about the sex to which the body belonged? Gender presentation is a matter of choice. Sex isn't. Men can't 'evolve' to become women - it requires surgery and lifelong medication to present even a simulacrum."

Saved it, well done. They're clearly not vetting the comments.

Ah, damn. When I first heard of it, I thought this book had a great premise. I might have considered adding it to my Christmas wish list. Still, I shouldn't have expected any different once I saw that she was US-based.

The author sounds completely full of herself… life drawing model, poet, egg donor, academic, musician and ‘nearly a sex worker’. Bold in speaking against ‘Sex essentialism’ ffs. Wonder how the women murdered, sexually assaulted, and raped daily feel about their sex essentialism.

The person writing the review is a doctor and psychiatrist and ends the review stating: The author’s parting plea is that we learn more about women and girls. In the UK, unlike the US, there is still no regulation that insists women are included in medical research. Not everyone agrees with the ethical good of extending participation. Might they acknowledge that being specific about people’s sex and gender leads to more rigorous and reproducible scientific results? It’s also a safer approach. Studying men, unaffected by periods and pregnancy, may produce “clean” data, but only by shifting risk for women out of the controlled setting of a lab and into the chaos of the real world.

What a crazy logic fail. If trans women are women (and the reviewer does not offer a critique of this argument), why is she worrying about including ‘women’ in medical research?

Absolutely weird to read that introduction sample and find the shite about 'brain-based' gender apparently inserted by a different author (i don't think it was, it's just a screeching disconnect with the rest of the intro).

Similar effect in Unwell Women by Elinor Cleghorn, where a paragraph of obeisance to gender is clumsily inserted into the introduction about female bodies.

Is this the impact of a sensitivity reader? God I would love to know. But they'd never admit it.

I'm reminded of Jane Austen havibg to dedicate her novel to the loathesome Prince Regent, only instead of being deadpan and sarcastic, these authors seem to have convinced themselves to say 'Prince George, you're terrific and soooo fit!!'

They've started modding. Brit's comment is still there (for now) but one has gone for 'not meeting community standards'.

Ah, that’ll be me.

One of the reviews:

The Female existed first on Earth,acc. to Evolutionary Biology-and the Male evolved out of the female,at, least among Mammals. This is why Men have Breasts and some Men lactate breast milk. Men and women have both male and female sex hormones.
So there is no 100% woman with only 100% female sex hormones. And no 100% Man.
A man can have a a male body but due to excess female hormones ,as a fetus, have a more female brain...Look it up.

I mean good grief, I can't really thing what to say other than that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing but this contributor doesn't even seem to possess a little knowledge yet still manages to espouse dangerous trash. THAT should be modded out, as it's so far off true and potentially misleading to other TRA who didn't pay attention in school!

LOOK IT UP!

The Guardian is happy to leave that bullshit up for all to read. But God forbid anyone suggests humans/mammals can’t change sex. I read - bought - that paper for 40 fucking years! Can’t believe what it has become. They had a women’s page and everything!!!

Surprisingly my comment is still there and some kind poster has replied saying "Good summary, common sense approach which reconciles gender and biology."