-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
Margaret Atwood seems to be going down the JK Rowling rabbit hole
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
Alright so tonight at the very least Atwood took some time to actually respond to tweets on the issues rather than completely run off - and on the positive side she reaffirms her base belief that we are the gender we identify as.
However, she's still very much under this weird both sides framing, which is to say pitting trans rights against against womens rights in a battle against each other that Atwood says need to work together against the "common enemy" who broadly hate women.
She doesn't get the part that TERFs just fucking hate us, they do not accept trans women nor respect trans men - we are their primary target, as TERF groups have explicitly teamed up with the so-called "common enemy" to fight their actual target, us. TERFs are the allies of conservative organizations that seek to rollback the rights of all women. Atwood is still falling for the ridiculous idea that toxic trans activists are trying to erase womanhood with gender neutral language, and using that strawman to fuel her perception of trans rights vs womens rights instead of the simple fact that TERFs is just a group of hateful bigots. It just appears like she's just conflating TERFs to simply mean "cis women".
The idea is that trans folk & TERFs need to just come together is just mindblowing, but even more frustrating is having the gall to spout this both sides shit while only tone policing the oppressed and having fucking nothing to say about the oppressors.
However, she's still very much under this weird both sides framing, which is to say pitting trans rights against against womens rights in a battle against each other that Atwood says need to work together against the "common enemy" who broadly hate women.
She doesn't get the part that TERFs just fucking hate us, they do not accept trans women nor respect trans men - we are their primary target, as TERF groups have explicitly teamed up with the so-called "common enemy" to fight their actual target, us. TERFs are the allies of conservative organizations that seek to rollback the rights of all women. Atwood is still falling for the ridiculous idea that toxic trans activists are trying to erase womanhood with gender neutral language, and using that strawman to fuel her perception of trans rights vs womens rights instead of the simple fact that TERFs is just a group of hateful bigots. It just appears like she's just conflating TERFs to simply mean "cis women".
The idea is that trans folk & TERFs need to just come together is just mindblowing, but even more frustrating is having the gall to spout this both sides shit while only tone policing the oppressed and having fucking nothing to say about the oppressors.
Exactly. It's a false framing for a lot of reasons but one of them is that it willfully ignores that the majority of "terfs" do not actually care about women's rights and will gladly align themselves with conservatism if it means hurting trans people. She seems to think that it's trans people who don't understand that conservatism is the enemy because they have the gall to speak out against these conservative women who just brand themselves as liberal in name alone while voicing support of things like abortion bans so long as it helps to reaffirm their view on what womanhood is. She literally wrote a book that includes women who go along with the oppression of other women so long as it still affords them some power and privilege in society and she's missing these white middle class cis women doing it right in front of her face. It's baffling.
She sounds like someone with good intentions but drowning on how much cis privilege she has
There's this, at least.
The whole thing with Atwood is she confidently feels like she supports trans rights, but is actually genuinely "just asking questions" which opens her up to platforming TERF ideology to quite a large audience who might not be thinking critically about the matter (since she clearly isn't either). The real problem with that is she might firmly want to support trans women, but some of her followers who read the crap she links might not feel as strongly and be swayed even if she believes she won't be. It's messy, even if her intentions are good.
I've at least seen a lot of TERFs mad at Atwood for posting a video on Rowling's transphobia
That one.
Like I do get that Atwood isn't a hateful TERF at least, she wants to be supportive, but good lord she has no recognition of her own privilege and often shows how out of touch she is from the actual struggles going on. I can only hope that she did learn a bit about her mistakes, I don't believe she did the first time but perhaps the second slip when she actually started engaging the conversation.
That one.
Like I do get that Atwood isn't a hateful TERF at least, she wants to be supportive, but good lord she has no recognition of her own privilege and often shows how out of touch she is from the actual struggles going on. I can only hope that she did learn a bit about her mistakes, I don't believe she did the first time but perhaps the second slip when she actually started engaging the conversation.
If she's actually improving, that would be kind of mind blowing. Not crossed the event horizon yet… come on…