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

It's just damage limitation. The whole thing is basically a protection racket, and anyone who writes a book now feels they have to put the TWAW clause in to cover their back. 🙄

Amazon sent me this book the other day - I hadn’t ordered it! Anyway, I started reading the introduction and it’s fascinating, engaging and really readable. Haven’t got to the TWAW bit yet, but I see she’s American, where everything’s a bit more insane on GI, maybe it will just be a sop to the activists to enable publication, I hope so, as it’s (so far) a rollicking good read.

Book belong discussed at the moment in start the week

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbcradioo_fourfm?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Not sure if that link works?

And another book called "disobedient bodies" which is around the cult of beauty - which actually sounds like it could be interesting

I'm glad that part has been widely quoted because now I won't buy the book.

If anyone has a Guardian account, comments still seem to be open on one of the, there's at least three, articles on this book. Although they have deleted a number.

In finding it's amusing that she's saying they grandmother hypothesis (we live beyond menopause to provide childcare) may not be accurate as orcas have menopause and they seem to be the holders of memory and experiences that benefit in times of need.

Women know stuff.

Same for elephants - older females remember things like how to deal with rare climate events, so can lead the herd to different waterholes in severe drought. Not sure that invalidates the grandmother hypothesis though - I've always understood it as being about the value of knowledge, not merely holding babies.

I read Unwell Women too and found that section to be screamingly shoehorned in. I think many publishers are now using sensitivity readers in order not to put off gender-woo types, so they can sell more copies and avoid bad publicity.
I was looking forward to reading Eve, but am not sure I will now.

At FiLIA, Bea Campbell was talking about her latest book on the Cleveland scandal and said that descriptions of the effect of the sex abuse on children which had been published in her book in the 80s were considered too upsetting for modern readers. She pushed back against this.

Not saying I’ve read EVERY word, but got to page 75 before finding Cat Bohannon’s first mention of transwomen, who - lord above - “are usually born without a vagina”. Then on page 83 she talks about the “rather small difference” in foetal genital development “that takes a handful of weeks and frequently goes astray” - I guess this is the “we all start off as female in the womb” trope I’ve heard a lot lately.

Such a shame, as I’m finding it hard to trust everything else she says, which is all very readable and interesting. To be fair both of the above examples are in the copious “notes” at the bottom of nearly every page, rather than the main body of text.

If they were born with a vagina they wouldn't be transwomen would they?

Glad I’m not the only one. This came up as a suggested buy for me and it was sitting in my basket when I read the guardian review. It’s a good job the review sets the authors stall out like this, as I would have been disappointed to find out after having spent £20 on the book.

first mention of transwomen, who - lord above - “are usually born without a vagina”

What. The. Fuck. 🤡

@WinterTrees her books are on Scribd. One subscription gives access to lots of similar books plus her ones.

I also thought it was about older women's value to the tribe as sources of knowledge.

I think Elaine Morgan said it showed that women's value was computed above the neck...

I have been enthralled by this brilliant book and recommended it to everyone. So the betrayal hit me hard. They save it for page 292, and I've uploaded the page for you to see for yourself. Convoluted sentences of twaddle frequently punctuated with "clearly", "simply": good science speaks for itself and doesn't need these unconvincing adverbs. To be honest the entire "Brain" chapter is a crock of shite: its whingey, morallising tone drones on about microagressions and is full of conjecture.

To help me finish the book I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt and imaginging she wrote these passages under duress, fearful of losing her career when she's still so near the start of it, or that it was ghostwritten by a sensitivity jerk - that would explain the change in tone.

What's really sad is that whilst on the one hand I want to shout "Don't buy this book!", on the other hand I don't want the wretched trans mob to yet again trample over discourse on women: most of the book is necessary, overdue, important - a vindication of womanhood. Why didn't the Times reviewer call out the crap? Perhaps because everyone would focus on that, and yet again forget about the bodies and rights of actual women. Just skip the Brain chapter and don't get distracted.

In the meantime I'm grateful to you mumsnetters for speaking freely.

@MoreThanHappyBeingLittleOldMe Thank you for uploading that page - all I can say is, WTF have I just read?

That is way too much word salad for this time of the morning.

Initial thoughts.

There's nothing weird about tenrecs having a lot of nipples, any more than there is about a starfish having 5 legs. Ridiculous remark.

If this brain difference is older than a lot of higher order functions, we should share it with species that share a common ancestor. Where are all the trans orangutans, or sheep, or platypuses?

Thanks for sharing, MoreThan.
Caveat: I haven't read the book, so don't know what the register and tone are otherwise, but assuming most of it is fact-based then that couple of pages is a fucking outrage.
Does she use the word 'sex' in the rest of it? Using 'gender' here as a synonym for 'sex' is even more unforgivable if so. 'normally assigned one of two genders at birth'?!?!?
However, I do agree about the trans thing being allowed, as you say, 'to yet again trample over discourse on women' and for that reason may still read it. Or buy/borrow it, anyway.

The first surgical sex reassignment procedure was carried out in 1931. The patient died of complications from the fifth procedure.

The first successful procedure was in 1969. People have only been able to surgically transition, as opposed to dressing as the opposite sex, for less than 60 years.

How does this square with the thousands of years of female evolutionary biology referenced?

The author of that book thinks the world is becoming less sexist?

I was given this book for Christmas. Had not heard of it so was pretty excited to have a look. The second page of the introduction (page 4) told me that the book would be a hard read.

I am not comfortable with an author who describes women's biology as an important part of evolution AND uses the word "cisgender" and the phrase "people assigned one or another sex at birth". Followed by a long footnote about gender essentialism. And that was before Chapter One.

TBH, from that extract, it looks to me like the author could have replaced the entire 'BRAIN' chapter with the single sentence "Gender ideology rots it."

Ditto.