Philip Pullman

www.philip-pullman.com/contacts

McEwan was roundly reprimanded over saying something about gender that outed him as old.

Gray seems to have kept pretty quiet about it. As a philosopher I'd say that has to be deliberate.

I'd love to know what John Gray thinks of all this. He's a philosopher (wrote Straw Dogs and Heresies) and has long been of the opinion that humanism is just a shoe-in for religion, that people just place faith in this idea of humans making progress. I suspect he would see through this ideology, but he wisely doesn't have a twitter account.

I want to know what Ian McEwan thinks. If he's sitting this out or coming down on the side of TWAW I will be more disappointed than I can ever articulate.

I've never read Pullman. I find him very off putting. Smug and self satisifed. I like McEwan because his face alone tells you he's full of doubt. And that's how a writer should be. Full of doubt so they go find out stuff.

Pullman is a coward. This issue finds you out. Stay schtum by all means. I get that. I respect that. But go all, oh dear, oh dear, oh deary me, it's all too hard for me a mere man to possibly understand is just pathetic.

Rationalism is different than empiricism though. Especially that kind of strong empiricism.

RoyalCorgi, Fry has changed from a sarcastically witty, intelligent comedian, into a misogynistic clever-dick who does not even hesitate before publicly displaying his dislike for women.

But goosefoot have you ever met a 'rationalist/positivist/New Atheist' who wasn't also completely brain washed about TG ideas? I don't think I ever have. Strange, really, when scepticism is their shtick.

Yes, I know, it does seem to the the way of it.

My theory, which may be crackerjacks, is that it comes out of the inherent logical contradiction of that particular type of empiricism. Their idea, roughly, is that only things that can be shown to be materially true, usually through science or direct observation, should be believed. But of course you can't prove that fundamental premise through science or direct observation - you can only believe it based on intuition, or faith, or a best guess sort of approach. So the very basis of their system is a logical and practical contradiction. The cognitive act of hiding the faith based nature of their system from themselves creates a kind of replicating and invisible error in their reasoning, almost like a programming error or system virus.

I'm totally with you about the manipulative writing, btw, that's exactly what's wrong with it. The stories are usually enjoyable but the underlying structures are dishonest.

It blows my mind that rationalist atheists cannot see how trans ideology is a neo-religion.

How can they denigrate "I believe in the transsubstantiation" and "I am that I am", yet support and promote "I believe a male is a woman if s/he says s/he is" and "I am a woman because I say that I am"?

It also blows any respect I have for their (apparently!) rational, clear, 'thinking'.

I think he's like Richard Dawkins. Prides himself on his rational mind and superior intellect, but refuses tp join the dots on this issue. See also the 'Bad Science' guy.

But there are some elements I'd think he's be all over like white on rice. He's very much along the same lines as people like Stephen Fry, all that rationalist/positivist/New Atheist business,

That reminds me. Fry hasn't said anything. Fry is very much of the view that TWAW but he's also a friend of JKR's (he read the Harry Potter audiobooks). So perhaps he's decided for once in his life that the wisest course is to keep schtum. Makes a change.

Strange for someone lauded for his clear thinking over religion.

Philip Pullman wrote some really good books and then hit the big time with his dark materials and became a darling of the liberal lefty oxford lot who had an opinion on everything.

He wrote the Sally Lockhart books, he knows that this is all utter bollocks bit cannot bear to come out and say it and have to give back the woke cookies.

I find him disingenuous. I imagine he's one of the men who stacks the dishwasher badly so he doesn't get asked to do it again.

But goosefoot have you ever met a 'rationalist/positivist/New Atheist' who wasn't also completely brain washed about TG ideas? I don't think I ever have. Strange, really, when scepticism is their shtick.

I've enjoyed his books, despite the fact that I find him a very manipulative writer. I profoundly disagree with him on many things, mainly because he is good at setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. So this doesn't surprise me one bit.
Strangely, I find myself still able to read his books, and have never said or written anything abusive about or to him...

He is afraid of the woke twitter mob so is keeping quiet. Fucking coward

I mean, I ca see someone finding certain aspects of this issue confusing or unclear. Unpicking the medical question is not necessarily simple, especially for someone from a non-medical, non-scientific background. And there is a lot of history to get through on it too.

But there are some elements I'd think he's be all over like white on rice. He's very much along the same lines as people like Stephen Fry, all that rationalist/positivist/New Atheist business, so I'd think he'd be awake to the question of the scientific meaning, reality, and significance of sex, and pick up on questions like why some things might be sex segregated rather than gender segregated, like sports. He should be sensitive to the essentialism question though to be fair a lot of people who should aren't.

But he seems all over.

https://excelpope.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/northerner-illuminates/amp/?twitterr_impression=true

This person's written him a nice little letter to explain it to him in nice clear words.

I'm particularly enjoying this analogy

This is a like a great white shark swimming up and asking for a bite of your ice-cream, and your concerns that you might lose a chunk of your arm in the process being reframed as you being too selfish to share your ’99.

That tweet being the one on the first page, just seen there's some others linked since

He can't seem to make his mind up on anything. He changes his view constantly

From what he's written in that tweet and then this comment above, sounds like someone who's learning as they go along and there's nothing wrong with that

In context, his tweets to and about LGB Alliance are really pathetic. He genuinely seems like the kind of bloke who would be sweetness and light to your face and then call you names to others the minute you left the room, and do the same to everyone else, too.

The great Phillip Pullman, ladies and gentlemen! The guy everyone avoids at work because he's a backstabbing gossip!

Having looked at Pullman's tweets I see this:

mobile.twitter.com/PhilipPullman/status/1270639018997362688

for which he got a firm telling off so one day later he posts this:

mobile.twitter.com/PhilipPullman/status/1271051409077743616

That's one of the most craven responses I've seen. At least Radcliffe and co have a set of beliefs they're sticking to.

But he's kind of always been a tit.

I've always faintly disliked him for no obvious reason except that he always seemed a bit too pleased with himself. Which is probably unfair. So it is kind of gratifying to know that I was right all along.

I don't doubt he was taken aback by the Twitter response when he first tweeted on this topic.

But he's kind of always been a tit.