Judy Blume & Dylan Mulvaney

Ok, I'm going to stick up for Judy here a bit. I took her reply to that question to mean 'love who you are', and she very quickly used the phrase "no matter what sex you are". When she spoke about growing up as well, she seemed to make it about emotional growth and said that looking back she still feels like she has 'grown up' from being a 50 year old which I felt moved it away from female puberty as a biological process that Dylan will ever experience.

I think it could have been much worse.

This puts her in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the likes DM. Had she refused the interview, there would have been plenty of people who would have been very happy to crow that she may claim to be against books being banned and excluded because people disagree with what they are about but she is quite happy to ban and exclude people because she disagrees with what they are about.

Sorry, this is nonsense. Being against book banning and censorship doesn’t mean you are obliged to directly talk to every Tom, Dick or Harry on the planet. You just have to agree that Tom, Dick and Harry have a right to say what they want, not that anyone has to listen.

Not sure if any remarks that are not fawning and sycophantic would be allowed on her online guest book, but here's a link for anyone who wants to try letting her know what they think about this debacle
https://judyblume.com/about-judy-blume/contact/

Yes. It’s clear that many people are making a great deal of money off the back of transgender ideology - not just this individual.

his puts her in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the likes DM. Had she refused the interview, there would have been plenty of people who would have been very happy to crow that she may claim to be against booksbeing banned and excluded because people disagree with what they are about but she is quite happy to ban and excludepeople because she disagrees with what they are about.

But it does make perfect sense to exclude people when the subject matter is something that has no relevance to their lives, experience or expertise.

We've been watching and greatly enjoying all the Eurovision build-up with Rylan, but we still wouldn't expect to see him interviewed about what it's like to be Prime Minister, with him revealing what life in Number 10 is really like.

I wouldn't expect to see Princess Kate recounting her tough life as a French peasant during the Renaissance.

I think this is a big part of the problem with many of the TRAs - where they want to be centred in absolutely everything, whether it's relevant to them and their lives or not; and of course, that means that if they are centred in something that absolutely does not concern or apply to them, that then means that somebody else to whom it does apply and means a great deal will be excluded - but it seems that it's absolutely fine to exclude, ignore and throw under the bus anybody who isn't trans.

It's back to the whole 'if you don't agree with my demands to take rights away from other people and add them on to the same ones that I already have, then you're a hater'. This crass unfairness and utter madness has to stop.

Part of the schtick is that it's all Dylan's work, making low-budget Tiktoks etc, but that in itself is a misrepresentation. Nobody managed by 7 people is 'low budget'.

That's interesting. Although I knew he was making an absolute fortune. This makes sense why / how.

Yes, that's true, Badger. All I mean is that this is not one person's doing; it's a clusterfuck.

There's not much point holding Dylan accountable for these decisions. Dylan is being used.

He could say no. He didn't.

Jesus wept.

There's not much point holding Dylan accountable for these decisions. Dylan is being used.

Management team, 2 people, Agency, 4 people, publicist, 1 person.

https://bookingagentinfo.com/celebrity/dylan-mulvaney/

That's seven people organising these events and meetings.

Part of the schtick is that it's all Dylan's work, making low-budget Tiktoks etc, but that in itself is a misrepresentation. Nobody managed by 7 people is 'low budget'.

This is a crafted and managed 'career'.

I am guessing that Dylan's agency makes these bookings and is using a strategy of some kind to position Dylan for maximum publicity etc.

I'm not sure yet whether these mis-steps are intentional or just very poor judgements. And it's unclear how much input Dylan has in the management of Dylan's brand.

What else could Dylan do, really?

Dylan's whole schtick is claiming that Dylan is a girl.

Just gritted my teeth and watched the interview with the sound down, reading the subtitles. Dylan could have approached it as an impartial “journalist” simply interviewing an author about a film, and yes, listening to her talking about women’s issues because that’s part and parcel of it. But no, Dylan had to make it about Dylanself and imply that just like Margaret, the late-20-something Dylan is also a female going through puberty, growing breasts, on a journey of womanhood, and needing advice from Judy.

I'd say don't negotiate with terrorists is always a sensible policy.
Even when said terrorists accuse you of 'banning'.

Women are not compelled to say yes to males for fear of being accused of 'banning' them.

Turning down a date is not 'banning' someone.

Refusing to pander to a flasher is not 'banning' a person.

Not smiling at someone or agreeing with them is not 'banning' them.

Women are not obliged to acquiesce to male demands.

Who the fuck sold us this bullshit?

No it’s not, Arabella but in this world of mega spin it’s essentially the same thing- or at least when a group of people want to make a poo t that can’t be made honestly.

This is what happens when words become defined however different groups want them as political currency.

Declining to talk with someone is not bloody 'banning' them.

Don't fucking patronise a wealthy successful woman. She could have said no. She didn't.

Judy Blume has been at the forefront of the campaign in the US against banning books. It is an issue she has campaigned on for decades, both on ideological grounds and deeply personal and practical ones, not least because her own books, that she clearly believes bring support, information, guidance and comfort to many young people, are amongst the most frequently banned.

This puts her in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the likes DM. Had she refused the interview, there would have been plenty of people who would have been very happy to crow that she may claim to be against books being banned and excluded because people disagree with what they are about but she is quite happy to ban and exclude people because she disagrees with what they are about.

I could completely understand her making a pragmatic decision to have a conversation with DM in order to not provide ammunition against her own long-running campaign on an issue that is particulaly relevant right now and which she feels very strongly about. It's not an easy black and white issue.

I don’t begin to understand why Judy needs to play along with this. She’s a very established writer and her books are still popular. I bought a couple for my own DDs, who lent them out to friends.

Why doesn’t she just tell the film company that they’re “having a laugh” if they’re expecting her to ask a MAN to talk to GIRLS going through puberty what it’s like to become a WOMAN?

Fucksake 🤬🤯😠

Yes. God forbid you show capacity for critical thinking. That’s very “right wing”.

FWIW, all the openly GC women I know - and thankfully there are quite a few now - would never describe themselves as “right wing” and would be horrified at the label. They are all, however, smart, open minded women who don’t care about following the crowd like obedient sheep when it comes to voicing their opinions on seriously important issues that are impacting on the lives of women and girls, of our own daughters.

Great to see so many posters calling out a revered author having to be involved in a humiliating hostage exercise. Along with the natural empathy / understanding of female puberty that Dylan / men will never have .

‘have been following the Dylan bud light boycott with some unease because I think some of that may actually come from transphobia and right wing-ness. ‘

oh no , not right wing ness! Quick , hand me the knife , I ll just cut my daughters ‘ breasts off, anything rather than be tainted by ‘right wing ness’ .

Men ( and quite a few women) didn’t want to continue buying the beer, because they didn’t find the new image it had chosen attractive. We have not quite reached the point where consumers have to align themselves with images which they don’t like ( though I expect it’s coming).

Or is free choice a bit ( whisper) right wing? It seems so.

There’s enough salt in this discussion to supply a fish and chip shop.

I think the bud light boycott was men saying you will not force this crap on us.

We won't be forced to silently go along with the ludicrous idea that this bloke is a women.

No. Your woke marketing department will not dictate our views and values.

And no they weren't gender critical or left wing. Most people aren't but they just don't believe in the crap they're being sold.