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

I think it was just poor research. Which was jarring as she waxed eloquent about her extensive research at the start of the book. One good result though was I ended up finding a fascinating book written by an Indigenous archaeologist detailing the earlier sites found 😊.

I don't know what country you're in or if it varies between countries, but in the UK at least authors do (or can, anyway) get paid for library loans. Unfortunately, for anyone who's borrowed this one in the UK.

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel I'm at the point where I can no longer stand the stupidity

you are not alone, its gross stupidity

I keep thinking that future generations will be looking back on this and thinking WTAF?!

thebloatedmiddle

i like to think so,

have you ever seen the film Idiocracy?

completely unrelated question 😏

What a coincidence, I just listened to an episode with her on the podcast Intelligence Squared, and then this thread came up in Active! Rather, I listened to about half and when she got to “people with uteruses” I gave up. The podcast format is normally very conversational in tone but she spoke non stop, seriously NON STOP for at least the 25 minutes I listened to it. One question from the presenter/moderator (Lucy Cooke) is all I heard. So I was beginning to find it insufferable already, and when she took a break to explain that not all people with uteruses are women I quit. How can I believe her research when she mixes apples and pears.

Aw feck, I am in Canada and turns out they do get paid. Oh well. Maybe our negative press here will have an effect.

Yes, let's hope! I assume public lending rights payments aren't as much as money from actually selling books, although I don't know for sure.

Damn, I was almost ready to convince myself that she was forced to put in the nonsense, or not get published (at gunpoint, preferably). But Oh No, she is just a fucking handmaiden. Everything must include men, even the book that claims to be all about women. I just don't get it.

She writes: We have to put the female body in the picture. If we don't it's not just feminism that's compromised. Modern medicine, neurobiology, paleoanthropology, even evolutionary biology all take a hit when we ignore the fact that half of us have breasts.

How can she write that, and include male bodies in the picture?

I don't understand it at all. I could sort of understand why she'd say "people with uteruses" to make sure transmen get the message like, but she really doubles down on it IMO. Give the episode a listen I'd say and save yourself reading the whole book ;) she basically delivers the whole thing in a lecture.

In the 'interesting potential books about women fucked up by handmaidenry' I'd include The History of Art Without Men, which sprinkles about the odd cisgender and dutifully they/thems any female artist with short hair or trousers.

Because obviously they were non binary, rather than trying to make a statement in a sexist society.

Wow. What a pile of shit. Glad I didn't waste my money on this poorly argued twaddle. I guess it's true what they say about monkeys with type writers .

Oh no, that's on my 'want to read' list

Argh! Oh no! I bought this as a present for someone and I'm so disappointed to hear that!

Oh it's not all bad - you still find out about a lot of interesting female artists! Just that ground my gears a bit.

Thanks for this thread, I'd missed it. She's apparently on a UK tour at the moment coming to a venue near me!
I was interested but then saw this from an interview she did which confirms her idiocy.

As you point out in your book, milk preceded the breast and the nipple, but the nipple itself is interesting as an example of the female body driving evolution and, well, men just coming along for the ride, as it were.

Right. So my father's nipples, I haven't seen them very often, but I know he has them. Now, my father's nipples, I don't think of as exactly vestigial necessarily. There are actually some human communities that let babies sort of suckle, mostly as a pacifier, on a male chest.

But the interesting thing about the male nipple is that basically, we [women] are hardwired to make milk, right? Essentially, the hormone protocol that trans women will take in order to potentially lactate if she has adopted a baby or has gone through IVF with a surrogate and wants to provide milk to the child is the same.

It's the same fistful of pills, essentially, that a cis woman will take because lots of women adopt babies, but then think maybe breastfeeding is a thing that could be healthy for my newborn, who wouldn't have it otherwise. Maybe I could try. And it's the exact same fistful of pills.

In other words, the human chest wall, no matter if it has these fatty bits, no matter which kind of puberty it goes through, is so hardwired to respond to certain hormonal signals that it's just like, 'oh crap, a baby's incoming,' you know, 'send down the milk.' We better start building some mammary tissue and it works!

You only get PLR if the book is borrowed from a library in the sample list, which changes every few years. It’s around 13.6p a loan. Total PLR cap is £6600.

Have only seen reference to this book here, and also v disappointed as it should have been exactly my thing. However, crazycanuck can you save the day (some months later) by giving us a reference to the book you found? 🙏

Here you go 😊

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55761703-the-indigenous-paleolithic-of-the-western-hemisphere

Thankyou so much. I will order that tomorrow (via my local, independent bookshop 😁)

💐

Well, that's a load of utter bullshit.

Send down the milk? Send it down from where?

Did she never look into the anatomical structure of breasts? The "fatty tissue" of women houses some damn important parts. Female puberty isn't purely decorative!

What men have is vestigial, which might be one reason why the few studies conducted on the fluid male transitioners do produce, have shown that even if that fluid was truly biologically identical to that of a lactating woman, the fluid was produced in too small a volume to nourish a newborn.

It's the same fistful of pills, essentially, that a cis woman will take because lots of women adopt babies, but then think maybe breastfeeding is a thing that could be healthy for my newborn, who wouldn't have it otherwise. Maybe I could try. And it's the exact same fistful of pills.

I'll call this out every time I see it. Women who adopt in the UK do not EVER breastfeed their child. A woman who wanted to do so would not have a child placed with her. Because adoption in the UK prioritises the best interests of the child, not the the wants of the adults.

Something males taking 'fistful of pills' could also do, instead of using babies to meet their needs and wishes.

Also, piss off with your offensive term 'cis', thanks.

Coincidentally, I came across this article on domperidone. Is that one of the 'fistful of pills'?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/30/the-darkest-period-of-my-life-i-struggled-to-breastfeed-then-a-drug-sent-me-spiralling

I hope I'm mistaken because it sounds like a nightmare. Is it excreted in the breastmilk? If it is what effect does it have on the baby? Do they have to taper off?

Yes that really is a lot of bullshit.

Pregnancy and the first 6 weeks post partum has an awful lot to do with it