Women's Prize for Fiction ‘greatest honour' as an intersex woman, says winner
The winner of the Women's Prize for Fiction has said the award is 'the greatest honour of my life as a woman' as she reflected on her experience growing up intersex.
Dutch author Yael van der Wouden won the accolade for her debut novel, The Safekeep, and used her winner's speech to champion the trans community, who have 'changed the system' and 'fought for health care'.
The book, which explores repressed desire and the unresolved aftermath of the Holocaust in post-Second World War Netherlands, was described as an 'astonishing debut' by the head of the judges.
The ceremony, held in central London on Thursday, saw the non-fiction prize awarded to physician Dr Rachel Clarke for The Story Of A Heart, which explores the human experience behind organ donation.
In her winner's speech, after thanking the judges, van der Wouden said: 'I was a girl until I turned 13, and then, as I hit puberty, all that was supposed to happen did not quite happen.
'And if it did happen, it happened too much, and all at once my girlhood became an uncertain fact.
'I won't thrill you too much with the specifics, but the long and the short of it is that, hormonally, I'm intersex.
'This little fact defined my life throughout my teens, until I advocated for the health care that I needed.
'The surgery and the hormones that I needed, which not all intersex people need. Not all intersex people feel at odds with their gender presentation.
'I mention the fact that I did, because in the few precious moments here on stage, I am receiving, truly, the greatest honour of my life as a woman, presenting to you as a woman, and accepting this Women's Prize.
'And that is because of every single trans person who's fought for health care, who changed the system, the law, societal standards, themselves. I stand on their shoulders.'
The NHS website says intersex, or differences in sex development (DSD), is a group of rare conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs that mean a person's sex development is different to most.
In contrast, people who are transgender identify as a gender separate to the sex they were born in and sometimes go through gender-affirming surgery.
Van der Wouden's novel follows Isabel, a young woman whose life in solitude is upended when her brother's girlfriend Eva comes to live in their family house in what turns into a summer of obsession, suspicion and desire.
The chairwoman of the judges for the fiction prize, writer Kit de Waal, said: 'This astonishing debut is a classic in the making, a story to be loved and appreciated for generations to come. Books like this don't come along every day.'
Van der Wouden will receive £30,000 and a limited-edition bronze statuette known as the Bessie, which was created and donated by artist Grizel Niven.
The judging panel for the Women's Prize for Fiction included novelist and journalist Diana Evans, author and journalist Bryony Gordon, writer and magazine editor Deborah Joseph, and musician and composer Amelia Warner.
Clarke said she has 'literally been a feminist since I was too young to know what that word even meant', as she collected her award.
The physician's book recounts two family stories, documenting how medical staff take care of nine-year-old Kiera in her final hours after a car accident, while offering a new life to nine-year-old Max who is suffering from heart failure from a viral infection.
Clarke, who is behind the books Breathtaking and Your Life In My Hands: A Junior Doctor's Story, will receive £30,000 and a limited-edition piece of art known as the Charlotte, both gifted by the Charlotte Aitken Trust.
The judging panel for the non-fiction prize included writer and broadcaster Dr Leah Broad, whose work focuses on women's cultural history, and novelist and critic Elizabeth Buchan.
Previous winners of the fiction prize include Tayari Jones for An American Marriage and Madeline Miller for The Song Of Achilles, while the first non-fiction prize was awarded last year to Naomi Klein for Doppelganger: A Trip Into The Mirror World.
The awards were announced by the Women's Prize Trust, a UK charity that aims to 'create equitable opportunities for women in the world of books and beyond'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Covid study shows another reason to get vaccinated: Protecting the kidneys
Complications from a Covid infection can harm the heart, brain, lungs and kidneys. A new study finds that patients hospitalized for Covid were less likely to suffer severe kidney damage if they were vaccinated. Researchers at UCLA Health analyzed electronic medical records at a large academic hospital between March 1, 2020, and March 30, 2022, of approximately 3,500 hospitalized patients, ages 18 and older, and compared hospitalized patients who got at least two primary doses of the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson Janssen vaccine for Covid with hospitalized patients who had not been vaccinated. The researchers examined which participants developed kidney disease severe enough to require a type of dialysis known as CRRT, or continuous renal replacement therapy. The nonstop dialysis therapy does the work of the kidneys by filtering and removing waste from the blood. It's typically used when a patient is in intensive care, said lead author Dr. Niloofar Nobakht, health sciences clinical associate professor of medicine in nephrology at UCLA Health. The study found that 16% of unvaccinated patients with Covid were more likely to need CRRT, compared with 11% of vaccinated patients during their hospital admission. Unvaccinated patients were more than two-and-a-half times as likely to need CRRT after leaving the hospital — and also had a much higher risk of dying after being discharged, compared with vaccinated patients. In a 2021 study, researchers at Yale University School of Medicine found that among hospitalized patients with Covid, approximately 30% develop acute kidney injury — an abrupt, usually reversible form of kidney dysfunction. Patients hospitalized with Covid were twice as likely to need dialysis than patients hospitalized for other reasons. There is a major limitation in the new study. The researchers did not have the full data on baseline kidney status for the patients —meaning, it's not known how well their kidneys were functioning before the infection — so the benefits of the vaccine may be overestimated or underestimated, said Dr. Scott Roberts, associate medical director of infection prevention at Yale School of Medicine, who was not part of the new study. Covid can injure the kidneys either directly or by damaging other organs such as the heart and lungs, Roberts said. The more severe the symptoms, the greater the risk. 'Conversely, mild or asymptomatic infections rarely cause significant kidney harm,' said Yong Chen, a professor of biostatistics and director of the Center for Health AI and Synthesis of Evidence at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not associated with the new study. Chen researches Covid complications, including kidney problems, in children and adolescents. The risk of post-Covid kidney complications is especially high in older people or the immunocompromised, but it's likely connected to the severity of the initial infection, rather than the virus itself, experts say. 'Comparing Covid to people hospitalized with flu, for example, shows that both have an elevated risk of kidney injury, and it seems to track with how sick they were during their hospitalization,' said Dr. F. Perry Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University School of Medicine who has studied kidney injury in Covid patients. 'Among people with Covid, I would expect that, all else being equal, the vaccinated group just has less severe disease and thus less kidney trouble.' 'Vaccination protects kidneys mainly by preventing the severe forms of Covid that cause kidney injury,' Chen said. 'While vaccines don't directly shield kidney cells, they blunt the systemic illness that otherwise leads to multi-organ failure.' However, both Covid infection and the vaccines may be risky for people with glomerulonephritis, a type of kidney disease where the filtering units known as glomeruli get damaged Dr. Jeffrey S. Berns, clinical nephrologist and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, said there are reports of adults and children with glomerulonephritis having a relapse of the condition or developing the condition for the first time following Covid infection and also vaccination. Berns was not part of the study. The study only applied to people 18 and older, but experts say children with Covid can get acute kidney injury and some of them may have permanent kidney damage. 'In a study led by our team, the results also showed that children with prior Covid had a 35% higher risk of new-onset chronic kidney disease over six months,' Chen said. In late May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer recommend routine Covid shots for healthy children and pregnant women. Doctors say it's too soon to know whether the revised guidelines would contribute to unvaccinated children's increased risk of kidney injury. Even as a new variant of the Covid virus is gaining momentum in the United States, there are fewer cases of acute kidney injury associated with the illness than in the early years of the pandemic. 'As more and more people got vaccinated and or had some degree of immunity from prior infection, disease severity was not as bad and AKI became much less common,' Berns said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should people be paid to donate blood? Yahoo readers have their say
Yahoo UK's poll of the week lets you vote and indicate your strength of feeling on one of the week's hot topics. After the poll closes, we'll publish and analyse the results each Friday, giving readers the chance to see how polarising a topic has become and if their view chimes with other Yahoo UK readers. The NHS is urging people to come forward as blood donors, saying there is a "critical" need for certain blood types. On Monday this week, officials said 200,000 more donors were needed in England to maintain the blood supply. Low blood stocks prompted officials to issue an 'amber alert' over supply for hospitals last year and NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) said more must be done to avoid a 'red alert'. The blood type most in demand is the so-called universal blood type — O negative blood — needed for treatment in emergencies. There is also a need for more Black donors, who are more likely to have specific blood types that can help treat people with sickle cell disease. In our poll earlier this week, we asked Yahoo readers if they thought an incentive could attract more donors and posed the question: Should people be paid for donating blood? Two thirds of respondents to our poll (66%) thought no, blood donations should be voluntary. Some 29% thought yes, people should be paid, while a further 5% were undecided. We also asked, 'How much would prompt you to donate blood?' The vast majority of respondents (70%) said they were happy to do it for free. Of those who stated an amount, the most popular options were smaller sums, 8% said a value up to £20 would tempt them, while a further 8% cited a payment between £21 and £40. Only 5% said an amount of £100 or more would prompt them to donate. The poll's Have Your Say feature attracted some passionate comments, with a number of readers citing safety concerns as one of the reasons they didn't agree with payment for donations. Stephen A from Westbury, said: "I don't think it is a good idea to pay people for blood donations because we could have a similar situation to the blood scandal in the seventies. People who had all sorts of illnesses and drug-related problems sold their blood and created an unnecessary health problem for otherwise healthy individuals." Richard S from the Highlands agreed, saying: "Payment for blood will attract many short of money because they have taken drugs." Some readers even said payment would prevent them from donating. "I decided to become a blood donor when my wife was admitted to hospital in the last month of pregnancy," said Ian H from Hinckley. "I have now completed 104 donations … If I was told at that first donation that I would be paid, I would not have continued." However, some including Lenny T from Kent, said they agreed with payments for donation. "If it means more people will donate blood, it will help hospitals and doctors," they explained. Others said there were better ways to attract more donors, such as making the opening times and locations of donor centres more convenient, as well as increasing the age limit for giving blood, which currently stands at 65. "Those who donate do so for the best of reasons, to help others. it is a privilege to be able to help those in desperate need, and I was glad to be able to do so," said HMW from the Scottish Highlands. "I wish they would take blood from older folk – I'm late 60s – even if they have some health issues. If their iron is okay and you are not on life-saving meds, and are a universal donor – group O – it would help in crisis situations. I would love to be able to do something so useful beyond retirement." Denise D who lives in Italy said that convenience was an issue. "My daughter tried to give blood, she's donated for a long time. She tried to get another appointment, the first available appointment was three months later and 30 miles away," she said. "There need to be more collection points and nearer city centres." N Anderson from Worcestershire agreed saying: "Maybe the service should come to local villages, as they used to, asking people to travel to main towns with transport and parking charges is not on." Read more of Yahoo UK's Poll of the Week articles
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
The post-Roe fight over data privacy
Hey everyone! I hope you are all having a lovely Pride Month. Thanks for reading Women Rule. We'll be on hiatus next week and back in your inbox on June 27. Reach out and say hello: klong@ and ecordover@ This week I had a chat with Rep. Sara Jacobs on her reintroduction of the My Body, My Data Act. The post-Roe era has elevated a new data privacy fight, as concerns grow over how reproductive and sexual health data is collected and disclosed. But the issue has been front of mind for Rep. Sara Jacobs for years, even prior to the Dobbs decision. The California Democrat reintroduced the My Body, My Data Act on Thursday, which aims to increase protections for those who use apps and sites that collect reproductive and sexual health data, such as period tracking apps. Jacobs points to certain instances where reproductive health data, which is not protected under HIPAA, has been used to investigate and prosecute users in states with strict abortion laws. Jacobs describes the push to protect reproductive and sexual health data as 'the abortion fight of the 21st century.' The bill, which was introduced in 2022 and then reintroduced the following year, would provide consumer protections for users who disclose their reproductive and sexual health data on apps and websites. This includes limiting the data that can be collected to only that which is necessary to provide a certain product or service, and bolstering transparency from companies on how that data is collected, retained and shared. Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sponsored the bill's Senate counterpart. The legislation was introduced twice before, first in 2022 and again the following year, but made little headway. And with a Republican-controlled Congress, the bill's reintroduction will likely result in a similar fate. Women Rule spoke with Jacobs on the reintroduction of the bill, which comes on the heels of the three-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I first wanted to talk a little bit about the bill. I think especially in a post-Roe world, there's growing concern over government tracking on period apps and other apps and sites related to reproductive and sexual health. I first introduced this bill because right after the opposite decision came down when Roe v. Wade was overturned, I started getting all these messages from friends and peers wondering what they should do about their period tracking apps, and I also use a period tracking app, and we started looking into it and there's basically no protections for this kind of reproductive and sexual health data. It's not covered under HIPAA, and so we're already seeing people try to use this data to go after people who are getting abortions and those helping them in states that have criminalized abortion. We know that they want to go after this data, and so I think it's incredibly important that we as Congress do something to protect this very sensitive data. Actually, there was a poll two years ago that showed that 2 in 3 Americans, including 54 percent of Republicans, support Congress making it illegal for apps and search engines to sell their reproductive health data. Why is it important for this bill to pass now? Well, in 2017, even before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Mississippi police used Google search history to go after someone and alleged that she had an abortion. In 2022, the police used Facebook messages in Nebraska as part of an investigation into an abortion illegal under state law. More recently, a data broker sold cell phone and geolocation data to an anti-abortion political group that then used that information to dispense misinformation about reproductive health to people who had visited 600 abortion clinics in 48 states. And more Americans are turning to online clinics for medication abortions. Young people increasingly use the internet, live online, we are googling questions about medicine, we are using Ubers to get places, right? And all of this data can be misused, and we know the lengths that police and prosecutors will go to to try and intimidate or prosecute people for having abortions. With a Republican controlled Congress, it seems unlikely that the bill will pass, but have you received any support from across the aisle? Unfortunately, while I work in a bipartisan way with a lot of Republicans on data privacy, when it comes to this kind of data, they have been unwilling to engage even though they claim to support data privacy. We're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade being overturned, and you've mentioned a few examples. Could you talk about how the Dobbs decision has impacted those who use these reproductive and self sexual health tracking apps and sites? Look, especially in states that have criminalized abortion — something like 1 in 3 women live in a state that has criminalized abortion in some way — there is an incredible amount of fear that even if they have a natural miscarriage they could be prosecuted because they Googled something once or that this kind of information can be used against [them] and weaponized against people. I think as we're seeing more and more states and as we know that at the end of the day this Republican Party wants a federal abortion ban, it's more important than ever that we protect people's data. Is there anything in particular about the My Body My Data Act that you would like to highlight? This is the abortion fight of the 21st century, right? Because it's about access and it's about how they're enforcing these really horrible laws. Americans are now becoming more aware of how their data is being used and stored, in part because of DOGE and what Elon Musk is doing. And we know that women are often trying to find the apps and services that claim to safeguard their data, but each individual person shouldn't have to try and figure this out on their own, and it shouldn't be up to companies to do the right thing. This is the exact kind of thing you need the government for, to protect very sensitive health data. And young people intrinsically understand this issue from both sides of the aisle. But part of what's hard is that so many of my colleagues do not understand this. There's just a bit of a mismatch between Congress and the American people on this issue. POLITICO Special Report How Kamala Harris Is Processing the LA Unrest by Melanie Mason for POLITICO: 'Harris has been choosy about when to weigh in publicly on politics since leaving Washington. So her statement on social media this week denouncing President Donald Trump's activation of the National Guard as a 'dangerous escalation' instantly lent itself to frenzied tea leaves reading. … For Harris, it was a natural issue to speak up on for several reasons, according to one of the people familiar with her thinking and granted anonymity to speak freely. First, she's coming at this as a lifelong Californian who came up in law enforcement and has made the rule of law a driving theme of her career. She also empathizes with the protesters, after growing up steeped in the civil rights protests of her childhood and campus anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s.' Trump's DOJ Indicted a Democratic Congresswoman. The Case Could Fall Apart. by Ankush Khardori for POLITICO: 'The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration.' Phil Murphy Skated to the NJ Governor's Mansion. Mikie Sherrill Might Not Have it So Easy. by Matt Friedman and Madison Fernandez for POLITICO: 'Rep. Mikie Sherrill was the vanguard of the anti-Trump backlash in 2018. Just months after the political unknown declared her Democratic candidacy for Congress and began raising money at a fast clip, the 24-year Republican incumbent bowed out rather than face the first competitive general election of his career. Sherrill easily won what had long been a safe Republican district in a blue wave election that flipped the House. Now, Sherrill stands as Democrats' bulwark against a red tide after winning the party nomination for New Jersey governor Tuesday night.' Number of the Week More on that here. MUST READS Doctors Report the First Pregnancy Using a New AI Procedure by Alice Park for Time Magazine: 'Doctors at Columbia University Fertility Center have reported what they are calling the first pregnancy using a new AI system, in a couple that had been trying to start a family for nearly two decades. The pregnancy was possible due to an advance developed by the Columbia team, led by Dr. Zev Williams, director of the center, to address azoospermia, or a lack of detectable sperm in the ejaculate. Male factors account for about 40 percent of infertility in the U.S., and azoospermia is responsible for about 10 percent of those cases. Until recently, there was little doctors could do to address the lack of sperm needed to fertilize an egg, other than using donor sperm.' Domestic Abusers Could Have Easier Path to Getting Gun Rights Back Under Trump Proposal by Jennifer Gerson for The 19th: 'The Trump administration is proposing a change to how people convicted of crimes can have their gun rights restored, raising concerns over what this means for victims of domestic violence. The Democratic Women's Caucus and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Robert Hinchman, senior counsel at the Department of Justice (DOJ), criticizing an interim final rule that would move the responsibility for determining if someone gets their gun rights back from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to the Office of the Attorney General. While the ATF is part of the DOJ, the letter says the proposal would create 'an apparent lack of an objective, holistic process for making' these decisions.' Senate Democrats File Bill to Prevent Ban on Transgender Military Service by Luis Martinez for ABC News: 'The 'Fit to Serve Act' would prohibit the Defense Department from banning transgender service members from serving in the military. If passed, the law would prevent the DOD from denying access to healthcare on the basis of gender identity, and it would also prohibit the military from forcing service members to serve in their sex assigned at birth. It would also make it illegal for the military to discriminate against service members on the basis of gender identity.' QUOTE OF THE WEEK Read more here. on the move Fortune journalist Emma Hinchliffe was promoted to editor of the Most Powerful Women Daily newsletter at the publication, leading editorial for the 28-year-old franchise. Martina McLennan is now director of policy communications for economic and health policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. She previously was communications director for Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). (h/t POLITICO Influence) Cara Duckworth is now SVP of comms at USTelecom – The Broadband Association. She previously was chief corporate comms officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
