Terry Pratchett - Twitter

Not read all the posts but had s look at the Twitter thingy.

I see posters saying they don't know what GC is, misrepresenting etc.

And on Twitter some trying to explain.

It's pointless in things like this.

The baddies have been identified. They are dishonest and evil. We know how they think and what they mean.

Trying to say well hold on its this and that will not be listened to full stop.

If someone has decided that X is what you believe. Then that's that.

The Twitter things are pretty niche and v polarised.

IRL hardly anyone thinks that a woman is anyone who says they are. That prisons etc should be mixed sex.

And IRL hardly anyone, no matter what they claim, believes that a person they know well, and know to be (tolerant, feminist, lesbian, lefty or etc) has suddenly turned into some kind of NF extremist.

IMO

I don't really care if STP was GC or not, posthumously or not. I just love his books. That's enough for me. In his writings he seemed like a decent sort of bloke who understands a lot about human nature.

Thought it was a bit rude 😳

also 'the trans'? Really? I'm a feminist who believes in the immutability of sex, and I would never call trans people 'the trans'.

It's all nonsense. I'm boggled, truly, that this is actually a genuine discussion. Well, I spose it's Twitter, so not really, but still.

Dead people don't have opinions on controversies that happen well after their death. It's one thing to look at their words and say that the words show evidence that they were a certain kind of person who approached things a certain way. But no one can say what they would have thought and done about something that wasn't actually happening when they were alive.

Next week, Alan Turing's musings on 5G towers, followed by Plato's authoritative pronouncements on the efficacy of facemasks against Covid.

I was just thinking that

And as always, I'm struck by the differences in the calibre of the arguments put forward by each side. 'She started it!' - really?

I'm struck by the parroting of 'GC's believe in gender roles'.

Do they understand what words make up the acronym or are they just choosing to ignore it? If they know GC = gender critical, then what on earth do they think critical refers to?

There's also a strange similarity in many of the posts on the Twitter thread - almost like a script. Is 'GC's are transphobic and in favour of rigid sex-based gender roles' the new mantra to take over from no debate?

I'm as GC as they come, but what is it at the moment with declaring dead people as 'GC/not GC' at the moment? What does it actually achieve, it just causes Twitter spats that no one is going to win because the person in question is dead and can't step in to clear things up!

Whatever, I'm just pointing out who started it, and it wasn't the trans, and it wasn't Neil Gaiman or Pratchett's daughter.

Having recently re-read (or should that be pre-read!) Monstrous Regiment, which as others have written is about women escaping an existance forced upon them because of their biological sex, it is brain-aching to see how others interpret that as the characters being NB or transmen.

Thank you for the comments and discussion on this thread, I've found the twitter discussion upsetting.

This is the long quote Emma Hilton made from Pratchett. Tremendoisly moving, I think, and clearly demonstrates he knew exactly what a woman is, which is always the bottom line. He clearly had huge respect for women too.
mobile.twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1351295463773900803

It is painfully obvious that every gumby on Twitter repeating the line 'GC people believe in strict gender roles' are mindless parroting drones.

Pretty much everyone I've seen condemning the idea that STP would be gender critical has some weird idea that gender critical means "transphobic and in favour of rigid sex-based gender roles", which of course comes straight from TRA lies. "Don't read what they actually say, it's too too nasty, we will tell you so you don't have to suffer it".

It breaks my heart that kind and well-meaning people are being lied to and their good intentions manipulated.

It's a great book, by the way. I don't care what you think about feminism, it's a book you should read. I don't expect you to change your mind on anything as a result, but I think you'll have an enjoyable time reading it.

I believe she "started" it by quoting a long excerpt from Nation on how the Women's Place on the island was Women Only, and boys over a certain age weren't allowed in it.

So, no, not "putting words in a dead man's mouth".

It was 'gender-critical' Emma Hilton who started this suggesting that Pratchett would be on the GC side of thinking. The rebuttals are down to HER putting words in a dead man's mouth.

He understands that not matching the way you think you are is hard.

That did seem to be a recurring theme. There was some the more typical "rejected by your peers for who you are", but "not wanting to be who you are, but coming to accept yourself" was a more common and particularly Pratchett theme.

Again, Maskerade - Agnes coming to terms with not being Perdita. Either physically or mentally.

(I note that many claiming to be woman attempt to be so physically and claim to be so mentally, but never seem to notice that they're clearly not, mentally...)

I am sure TP would be very sympathetic to anyone with GD - after all in one of the witches books it's made clear that making someone think they have been turned into a frog is far crueler than turning them into one, as well as not leaving you with a bag of squishy stuff. He understands that not matching the way you think you are is hard.

He also knew that you have to accept who you are- if you are six foot you can't work in a dwarf mine, no matter how well you know the ceremonies.

We can't know what TP would think. I am sure he would be kind but he was smart enough to understand things are not simple. Whichever side he came down on I feel sure he would put a lot of thought into in.

Love that "intellectual Turing test".
I am very prone to exploring strengths of my opponents position to the extent I sometimes come across as arguing on the opposite side to my real view. I think I would pass on most subjects. Maybe not on genderism though. I've genuinely tried hard to understand but there's just no logical underlying base. It's sexism all the way down. I can't even fake argue that. To be fair nor can its proponents as far as i have been able to find.

Many adult children of famous, talented parents install themselves in a fandom as protectors of the parent's legacy but aren't self-abnegating enough to stop themselves from claiming to be the ultimate authority on the mind/intentions of the dead artist, or from claiming to represent the intentions or reputation of the dead artist by curating or expanding on the legacy (often in suboptimal ways) e.g. Rod Roddenberry, Christopher Tolkien, Brian Herbert, Sean Lennon.

This is the first subject on today's The Mess We're In, with Helen talking about some of these people like Rhianna Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, suggesting they should subject themselves to "the intellectual Turing Test": do you understand your opponents' position well enough that you could express them in a way that would fool them into thinking you were on their side?

It seems clear that many "anti-GC" people are a very long way away from this.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I can't see Granny Weatherwax or Nanny Ogg having much truck with #bekind!

“Haven’t you got any romance in your soul?’ said Magrat plaintively.
‘No,’ said Granny. 'I ain’t. And stars don’t care what you wish, and magic don’t make things better, and no one doesn’t get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you got to learn three things. What’s real, what’s not real, and what’s the difference.”

Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad