David Tennant

Ah well, I'll still be watching Good Omens. I've still enjoyed music/films created by or featuring men who have done much worse than wear a mean t shirt.

My interpretation of Monstrous Regiment and Going Postal was that Pterry understood full well about the difference between sex and gender. He makes fun of the post office worker who thinks that it's not OK for a sexless golem or a female dwarf to enter the women's loos unless they dress in a stereotypically feminine way. He highlights the PTSD of the girl who keeps setting fire to things, with a very strong implication that she's been sexually molested in something like a Magdalene laundry, and the likely consequences of being pregnant in combat for the girl who seeks the father of her child. The PTSD and pregnancy are because they were born girls. Pterry skewered the notion that the girls should have to disguise themselves as boys to be taken seriously. The women of MR are a beautiful tribute to James Barry and Joan of Arc.

People interpret Cheery Littlebottom as an analogy for gender transition, ignoring that she is female and has nowhere to transition to and from because dwarves don't have gender. It becomes clear in Thud! that her situation is more akin to that of a woman from an orthodox religious community who wishes to adopt some of the attire of the dominant culture. When the grag (a priest-like figure) calls her "undwarf", he is accusing her of heresy and betrayal of her culture, not of gender non-conformity. The dwarves don't have two genders, which would be required for her to be gender non-conforming. When she adopts she/her pronouns, she's adopting a language feature of the dominant culture. Pterry skewers the idea that sex could practicably be invisible and the idea that sex plays no part in attraction when he mentions how dwarf courtship requires an awkward early conversation to make sure that the two dwarves are of each other's desired sex.

Rihanna, like Gaiman, is jumping a bandwagon here and ascribing an opinion to her father that there's no evidence that he held to do so, in a similar vein to all the recent post-mortem transing of James Barry, Joan of Arc, Mike "Marsha" Johnson, Stormé Delavery, etc etc.

I remember Rihanna Pratchett telling people to Read. The. Books because Sir Terry would certainly have agreed that anyone could be anything they wanted.

But I did read the books (all of them, repeatedly) and what I got from them was a more gritty 'be the version of yourself that makes you happy, but realise you're doing it and don't lose sight of the truth'. I always felt he'd be a kindly GC, tbh.

Unlike Gaiman, whose books I love but doesn't seem to have ever met a bandwagon he didn't want to jump on.

The writers are playing to their audience with the rainbow preachiness.

The entire fanficdom on places like fanfiction.net, Tumblr, Archive Of Our Own, Wattpad, etc is based on the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley looking like a gay couple, even though they are not even human, to the point that Gaiman was criticised for betraying the (presumably gay) "community" by some "fans" (I use quotes because real fans recognise that they don't own the work and don't act entitled to tell creators what to do) when he reminded us on his Tumblr that A and C aren't human so the labels "gay" and "straight". The fanfic is like the old Kirk/Spock erotic fic writers from the nineties, with an added dose of "sometimes one (usually Crowley) or both of them puts a vulva on". The (book) canon ability of angels and demons to choose their apparent sex makes the GO fanficdom a magnet for TQ types because they can indulge their wishful thinking with one hand down their pants about changing sex. Except that you can't change sex in reality, and I think that overindulging in such fictions makes reality harder to accept.

It’s a bit preachy. Turns out some people are gay and that’s ok

thanks for that John and Neil

but despite that it is awfully good

How can you have a say about what is said about you (or written about you) after you are dead?

If one of your kids has an issue with you would you think it better to air that while you can put your point of view or when you are silenced?

You have no idea of the pressure on Children of Transitioners to stay silent. Shame on you for trying to silence our children further.

Watched the first two episodes last night, it’s good. Mr Finnemore is pretty much worshipped as a god by my eldest son.

David Tennant is also very watchable, although upstaged slightly by Michael Sheen I think

he may be an idiot but he’s a jolly good actor

I was thinking of the original story being co-written by Sir Pterry.

That whooshing sound above your head was my second point. It's not about criminality, it's about women having the right to speak about their own experiences regardless of whether another person involved is dead.

There was a huge power imbalance that kept Savile's victims quiet during his life. Stop and think of who benefits from your attempts to silence women from speaking about their experiences at the hands of dead powerful men.

fuck me

point two went straight over your had didn't it?

ooh really? that has persuaded me to watch it

Well don't you think it would have been better if they had felt able to speak? He could have faced justice.

Are you suggesting that Jan Morris did something criminal?

It's generally accepted that it was anything but shite, no doubt in part because it was co-written by the extremely talented John Finnemore.

1. You ignore the huge power imbalance between father and daughter.
2. By your reasoning, Jimmy Saville's victims should have spoken up whilst he was alive or else stayed silent, because Saville also has no right of reply.

In the absence of the more talented author of the pair, is that surprising?

To go back to the topic of the thread. That t-shirt and the posturing just makes me think David and Georgia Tennant are credulous twats. Pathetic and gullible. Totally lost any respect I may have had for them. Can't understand why so many celebrities can't see this sexist, regressive, homophobic cultural phenomenon and the awful impact on children and young people for what it is.

Well said.

Read that Sunday Times article again and explain which parts you think should have had a 'right of reply' for Morris.

Much of that article is Suki Morys's reply to things that her father wrote during a long writing career. This article is her reply to things that Morris wrote. She felt silenced during her father's lifetime, and now you want to silence her again because her father can no longer reply. Morris's point of view is everywhere.

Jan Morris had a long writing career and even wrote a book about transitioning. Morris's wife and daughter felt silenced while Morris was alive. Now you want them to remain silenced because Morris is no longer there to reply to them.

Suki is a brave woman to write these things about her relationship with her father, who she acknowledges several times in the article as a great writer. And you call her 'cheap and cowardly' for finally being brave enough to publish how she has suffered her entire life because of her father's selfish behaviour.

The second series of Good Omens was a bit shite anyway.

Conversation with

Families are complicated. Morris had plenty to say when alive. The daughter quite possibly felt completely silenced and only able to have her say after the fact. It's not always easy to have an open and frank conversing someone who believes their own fantasy.

This

How can you have a say about what is said about you (or written about you) after you are dead?

If one of your kids has an issue with you would you think it better to air that while you can put your point of view or when you are silenced?

To suggest that Jan Morris of all people didn't get the chance to have their say while alive is ridiculous.