This morning, Atwood shared a link to an article titled "Why can't we say 'woman' anymore?" which, among dozens of TERF dog whistles, also contains the following passage:
"[J.K.] Rowling was branded a TERF — activists do like their neologisms — meaning trans exclusionary radical feminist. As if she was hostile to the trans movement, which she assuredly is not."
The article, written by Rosie DiManno for the Toronto Star, implies that the Harry Potter author and known transphobe's gender-critical views "got her bludgeoned by the mob" of trans rights activists. The article also claims that in the "outer orbit of linguistics," the word "woman" is "being blotted out" because of medical texts that use language inclusive of all genders. Further, the article reduces pregnant people who aren't cis women to a "tiny" number of people "born with female genitals."
The supposed "erasure" of women is among the most common tropes of TERF rhetoric — however, Atwood has still come to DiManno's defence, telling her followers: "Read her piece. She's not a Terf."
Many disagree with Atwood, as well as DiManno, and, as we all know by now, Rowling, on their stance that womanhood is being erased by gender-inclusive language. Several of Atwood's followers have pointed to the fact that no one is banning the use of the term "woman," meanwhile, the use of gender-inclusive language does not specifically target women or "people who menstruate," as there is a spectrum of genders represented by such terms.
See Atwood's tweets, as well as Twitter's reaction, below.
This is obviously a straw man to provoke manufactured outrage. Of course you can still say woman. You just shouldn't use the word to describe people who aren't women, e.g. trans men.
— Jemmancipation (@jemmapf) October 19, 2021
Oh no you're right I just tried to say it and a bunch of non-binary people stormed into my apartment and made me throw out my dresses. Ugh I just wish I had as much power as trans people do
— Hilary Agro 🍄🎃 (@hilaryagro) October 19, 2021
I'll never understand why changes like these are resisted when they make room for people that have been oppressed or are living under oppression. WHY?! It's no skin off your ass.
— tanya tagaq (@tagaq) October 19, 2021
No one is banning the word "woman." Many organizations are — rightly — opting for precise language when talking about things that have to do with biological traits rather than gender identity. It's not an attack on womanhood to NOT equate gender with specific biology.
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) October 19, 2021
I'm disappointed you shared this because it's factually untrue. We can still say "woman" & we can also say "people" when it makes sense to use more inclusive language. I'm nonbinary. I also menstruate and gave birth to 3 kids. Saying "people with periods" includes women AND me.
— Mx. Amanda Jetté Knox (@MavenOfMayhem) October 19, 2021
Oh look you're angry language is finally starting to include people like me.
— Ouaquaga on Chenango (@JnxOuaquaga) October 19, 2021
Disappointed in you.
But not shocked.
I hear JKR is looking for friends. You can sit at her table.
I am supposed to believe these vile jokes are a good faith start to the article?? No. I will not engage with this. pic.twitter.com/gIVM2xql2W
— Rachael (@tomethatscinema) October 19, 2021