7 votes

Margaret Atwood TERF Twitter controversy

Posted by nukeman
Tags: transgender, terfs, literature, books, transphobia, authors, margaret atwood, trans women, trans men, rights.trans, controversy, social media, twitter, source.reddit
https://old.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/qbbtba/margaret_atwood_shares_terf_article_talking_about/

Link information

This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.

Title
Margaret Atwood shares TERF article talking about "banning the word woman", denies it's written by a TERF, is going down the J.K. rabbit hole
Published
Oct 19 2021
Word count
898 words

8 comments

  1. [5]
    mtset
    Link
    Honestly, as a lot of the comments on Reddit are pointing out, I don't see Atwood's sharing of an article as a big problem. I mean, first of all, sharing an article is not an evil act - spreading...

    Honestly, as a lot of the comments on Reddit are pointing out, I don't see Atwood's sharing of an article as a big problem. I mean, first of all, sharing an article is not an evil act - spreading TERFy views is bad, but it's not that bad to share one article.

    The problem is that this is almost certain to be the beginning of a Rowling-like spiral. Atwood promoting this kind of rhetoric will lead to a bunch of people saying, "Why, Ms. Atwood, are you promoting hateful rhetoric? Do not do that." The terven will then point fingers and say, "Look at these awful trans activists trying to stifle and silence the voices of women." It will become a flashpoint for all the anti-trans rhetoric we already see, and whether she wants to or not, Atwood will become a symbol of terfery, unless she speaks up very strongly against it.

    14 votes
    1. [4]
      spit-evil-olive-tips
      Link Parent
      yep, right on schedule, Atwood retweeted this article: Trans rights? Yes. Toxic, in-your-face activism? No typical respectability politics crap. MLK identified this almost 60 years ago: the heart...

      The problem is that this is almost certain to be the beginning of a Rowling-like spiral.

      yep, right on schedule, Atwood retweeted this article:

      Trans rights? Yes. Toxic, in-your-face activism? No

      I am a transgender woman who began my transition in 2011 and completed it in 2014, with my gender reassignment surgeries. I believe in trans rights and protections against discrimination in employment, housing, health care and education based on gender identity, as was the intent of Bill C16.

      What I don't believe in is some of the new, more radical, and in my view more toxic forms of activism that have sprung up over the last decade.

      Personally I've found this toxic, in-your-face activism overly confrontational. I believe it creates more, not less, animosity toward the trans community.

      typical respectability politics crap. MLK identified this almost 60 years ago:

      the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"

      the heart of her argument seems to be that she wants to gatekeep transgender to exclusively mean trans people who have checked off all the boxes on some hypothetical "transgender checklist":

      "Trans woman" no longer means what it did. It no longer refers exclusively to an individual who has gone through therapy, hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries.

      since she lives in Canada, I imagine all her gender-affirming medical care was paid for by Canada's healthcare system. that's good, but I also think it's given her an enormous blind spot. if a transgender person in the US wants gender-affirming surgery but can't afford it, somehow by her definition they're not actually trans?

      13 votes
      1. whbboyd
        Link Parent
        I get that this is just an obvious counterpoint to tear down a bad argument, but if a trans person doesn't want bottom surgery for whatever reason (and there are good reasons: surgery is not...

        if a transgender person in the US wants gender-affirming surgery but can't afford it, somehow by her definition they're not actually trans?

        I get that this is just an obvious counterpoint to tear down a bad argument, but if a trans person doesn't want bottom surgery for whatever reason (and there are good reasons: surgery is not risk-free; outcomes vary in, erm, quality; and infertility is a guaranteed outcome), that also doesn't make them not trans.

        8 votes
      2. eladnarra
        Link Parent
        Those types of respectability, "anti-toxic" articles are so hard to fight. It sucks. As soon as you try to refute them, or get a little angry because you're being attacked and/or misrepresented,...

        Those types of respectability, "anti-toxic" articles are so hard to fight. It sucks. As soon as you try to refute them, or get a little angry because you're being attacked and/or misrepresented, woops! You've "proved" them right! You're just an angry activist who shouldn't be listened to, like the article says.

        Totally different topic, but I see it after publication of articles about my chronic illness. (Some doctors who think it is psychogenic call patients "militant activists" for disagreeing.) And after all this time, I don't know how you fight it effectively without getting your words twisted to prove their point. Bad policy and bad science need correcting, but if you're labeled as "bad" for trying to do so, those corrections get dismissed.

        8 votes
      3. mtset
        Link Parent
        Yeah, these kind of assimilationist white trans woman who equate surgeries with seriousness are the worst.

        Yeah, these kind of assimilationist white trans woman who equate surgeries with seriousness are the worst.

        7 votes
  2. nukeman
    Link
    TL;DR: Margaret Atwood shared a TERF-y Toronto Star opinion piece. Many people are very upset and wondering why and if it is indicative of deeper views. This comment on Reddit was intriguing:

    TL;DR: Margaret Atwood shared a TERF-y Toronto Star opinion piece. Many people are very upset and wondering why and if it is indicative of deeper views.

    This comment on Reddit was intriguing:

    I know Atwood is like eighty now

    This.

    Atwood politically came of age in the 50s and started publishing in the 60s. She spent essentially her entire life in a world where feminist scholars and activists believed that gender was the result of socialization. "Women are made, not born" was not just a quote due to the most influential and widely read feminist of the era, it was an actual rallying cry. The idea that people could be born with a male brain or a female brain, that gender identity could be innate and fixed and independent of upbringing, was considered essentialist, if not actually fascist. Many of the biggest feminist events and magazines were explicitly and proudly trans-exclusionary. Viewing trans women as either predators or as a kind of super-gay, uber-flaming homosexual men was not just acceptable, it was the norm in her intellectual world.

    Her work reflects this: The Handmaid's Tale is a story of women being enslaved and raped because the kyriarchy demands control over their reproductive tracts. The Penelopiad is similarly about sex and reproduction.

    Penelope is effectively a prisoner in her own palace because her entire legal and societal status derives from the fact that her husband and master expects her to bear him sons. The Maids are murdered in cold blood because they were unable to prevent themselves from being raped, i.e. destroyed as potential bearers of legitimate children and thus made worthless and repugnant as human beings.

    The Penelopiad is about class and the performance of femininity to a degree, but it is not a book about women experiencing workplace discrimination or about queer people being harassed on the internet or about trans people being discriminated against in the dating scene. It is a book about people with ovaries and uteri being socialized into obedience and submission (and then horrifically and unfairly punished anyway) because they are people with ovaries and uteri.

    From Atwood's point of view, the tectonic shift we have achieved these past five to ten years must look like an incomprehensible 180. Five years feels like a lot of time when you're young but not when you're 81. I don't think she's necessarily a bad person, I think she is confused and disoriented.

    11 votes
  3. [2]
    skybrian
    Link
    The article in the Toronto Star seems to be paywalled. I wonder how many have read it?

    The article in the Toronto Star seems to be paywalled. I wonder how many have read it?

    1 vote
    1. mtset
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I've read the DiManno article and it's not particularly coherent in my opinion. I posted an article written by a trans person which pretty well rebuts the whole thing, but in short, she's...

      I've read the DiManno article and it's not particularly coherent in my opinion. I posted an article written by a trans person which pretty well rebuts the whole thing, but in short, she's complaining about not being allowed to call herself a woman, but has essentially no evidence to show that this is something that's actually happening. And then she blames this non-phenomenon on trans people.

      11 votes