The Tate transes Marlow Moss

Yes, good point.
I know, it makes me giggle 😄

I think you should,if only to let them know that you haven't overlooked their rudeness.

Great username, btw - I love that meme.

I'm wondering whether to politely chase them. But I'm not sure I want to read whatever nonsense they'll no doubt spout back if I do...

In case anyone is interested, I replied to Tate Visitor Comms in early June (copy of email below). Have had no response, and have not heard a peep from Tate Kids.

‘Dear Adam
I've heard nothing from Tate Kids, so am copying them in here.

I find your response at best disingenuous. The article strenuously avoids using the words ’she’ or ‘her’; and it states that ‘We’re not totally sure’ of the answer to ‘Was Marlow Male, or Female? Or neither?’ None of this particularly accords with your claim that Tate isn’t making 'an attempt to retrospectively assign any specific form of identity’.

It would be perfectly possible to discuss issues of gender identity and its context – how Marlow Moss dressed and styled her hair, the fact that her name is not obviously a masculine or a feminine one, how society viewed/still views that etc – without using the meaningless ’they’ when discussing someone who was a woman, or saying – untruthfully – that no one is sure of her sex.

My decision not to renew my membership next year has not changed.

Thanks
MarkWithaC’

wow that letter is dreadful. Also her pronouns are not up for fucking review!

I know. They must think I'm an idiot.
I'm leaving it overnight so I'm suitably furious before I reply.

That's weasel worded sly guff. They did more than just raise a question. They deliberately used "they/them" pronouns. And why just raise that particular question with children? And they should be aware as historians of applying modern concepts to historical situations, because that's just not how that works. For all they know, Marlow Moss might have been a raving t*rf and used the pronouns fuck/off.

Got a reply to my email (from Tate 'main'; I also emailed the kids' section direct but it's still being considered by them, apparently.
The reply is pasted below. The word disingenuous is the most polite word that comes to mind.

'Hello Mark,

Thank you for emailing us with your concerns about the wording used to describe the artist Marlow Moss on the Tate Kids website.

We raise the issue of the artist's identity here as an interesting question to consider, not in an attempt to retrospectively assign any specific form of identity. Our interpretive material, whether in the galleries or online, is always kept under review and we appreciate our visitors' views as part of this process.

I have forwarded your comments to the Tate Kids Editorial team for their consideration.

Kind regards,
Adam Smith

Visitor Communications
Tate'

What the fuck?!? How come the essay (as well as being very interesting and informative; I didn't know about MM) talks about 'her' and 'she' and 'adopting a masculine appearance', but the kids' section goes full 'they'?
I'm a Tate member. I've unfortunately recently paid my year's subscription, but I'm going to write and tell them I will not be renewing next year. I'm fucking furious about this.

And of course, if we no longer count these women as women as they have posthumously been declared trans/nb the incredibly low numbers of women artists shrinks to almost nothing.

So again when we look for inclusion where it may not exist we exclude an underrepresented demographic.

Slow hand clap.

Is religion based on biology?

“Do women have to be men to get into the museum?” to paraphrase the Guerrilla Girls

Can the Tate trans their namesake Andrew? Could be one way to dismantle his fanbase...

Here's Charles Darwin with his oldest child, William Erasmus Darwin. I believe it is the only known photo of Charles Darwin with another human being. William married but died childless (although not because he was trans and had been sterilised, for what it's worth!): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Erasmus_Darwin

It will be fun to do some research on which famous men we might merit posthumously transition! Must get to it right away, so I can contact Tate (for painters and sculptors) etc.

Interesting, and confirms similar observations I have made about what happens to female authors and, quite recently, to female activists. They tend to disappear slowly from the records, the way old photographs fade away. Not right away, but after a generation or two, perhaps when those who are writing of the events did not witness them but apply other methods of deciding who mattered.

As someone whose brother, as a teenager, carefully explained to me that women were incapable of great works of science and art, as testified to by their absence in history (he has fortunately since changed his mind), all this is so typical and upsetting.

I had a job once where I was researching women in early 20th Century Ireland, covering the War of Independence and I found that more and more women disappeared from the accounts as the years went past. Thus, in the earliest accounts of the Easter Rising, women abounded but by the time my dd was in school, only Countess Markievicz had survived.

Any number of very young trans kids in portraits from earlier eras. Here's the future James II, second from the left, four years old and not breeched! Obviously the only possible explanation for this is that SHE knew her gender forcibly assigned at birth was at odds with her inner identity. Nothing whatsoever to do with cultural norms, oh no. God save Queen James!

[Nurse! The screens]

This is a portrait Claude Monet - he has long hair and no beard.
He must be non-binary.

oh no I forgot it's only women that are not allowed to step outside the social norms.