The Brontes have been 'queered'

That's a middle name. Surnames are often given as middle names for both sexes, as with the Bronte sisters' brother Branwell, who was actually Patrick Branwell Bronte, Branwell being their mother's surname before marriage. Sometimes, as in this case, the person becomes known by their middle name.

Well even JK Rowling was chosen as it was unclear what sex she was. Not as much has changed as we could have wished over the last 200 years.

https://paulineclooney.com/2016/12/30/the-mystery-of-the-brontes-pseudonyms/

In which year did common sense officially die?

These names were masks, totally unrelated to sex/gender identity. They were terrified of being discovered. Interesting that their father also adapted his surname Prunty to Bronte and it seems the children may have used the same idea with Bell adapted from the French "belle" which has female connotations. See above link for these and other far more interesting and believable reasons for the Brontes' choice of pseudonyms. Currer and Acton were probably inspired by people they knew.

Exactly. You have put it better than I ever could.

But so what? It was a work of imagination. If she had written a story from the perspective of a dog having human thoughts and emotions would we have to conclude that she was actually a furry?

'Black Beauty' is written in the first person as the autobiography of a horse.

Next up: Anna Sewell was a furry.

Because “gender identity” is a recent, postmodern invention, with no basis in reality.

It is being used here to obscure the extreme sexism of the time the Brontë sisters lived in. To suggest they were “playing with their gender identity” when the fact is that they were forced to assume pseudonyms to even be considered for publication is a frivolous and insulting suggestion.

I am waiting for someone to take their life in their hands and re gender JKR, after all, JKR chose a male pseudonym to write the Cormoran Strike books. Isn’t that sending a secret message to everyone, shock horror!

Yes, as surnames they were known to the Brontës but I was more reacting to the derail around 'they weren’t ever used as given names'. It's nice to think they chose the surnames of women, though!

Actually the Brontë pen names can be much more realistically compared to JK Rowling, who also published under an ambiguous name (with the K inspired by another woman) because she was told by publishers that a female name would mean less success.

But so what? It was a work of imagination. If she had written a story from the perspective of a dog having human thoughts and emotions would we have to conclude that she was actually a furry?

Having to look at everything through the lens of gender ideology is so tiresome and such a clunky way of trying to prove that it is real now because it was supposedly real in the past.

The museum uses the term ‘gender identity’ which in the context of Pride has a very specific meaning related to someone’s innate feeling about their gender. To use that about the Brontës is at best presumptuous.

They always muddle sex and gender when it suits them and then jump on critics to correct them on the usage.

I cant see any relevance in arguing whether 'Currer' or 'Ellis' were given names or not; if you looked hard enough you’d probably find one or two people with that name, but it’s beside the point as far as I can see

Theres a rather lovely theory (which you probably already know as a member of the society), that they may have been the surnames of two published female authors and the female owner of one of the most extensive libraries of the time, which, if indeed the case, would be a great FU to the patriarchy of the time.

If the Brontes were "examining their gender identity", it would only be in a very critical way, on how the sexist gender roles allocated to women held them back.

This is just more proof that the gender identity lens is anti-feminist. Instead of seeing gender stereotypes as the problem, you see the problem being that people are not allowed to easily break from the stereotypes ie the problem is personal, not structural.

If the Brontes were "examining their gender identity", it would only be in a very critical way, on how the sexist gender roles allocated to women held them back.

This is just more proof that the gender identity lens is anti-feminist. Instead of seeing gender stereotypes as the problem, you see the problem being that people are not allowed to easily break from the stereotypes ie the problem is personal, not structural.

A PP asked for examples of Ellis as a given name for women.

I provided one.

The Brontes and their characters behaved outside gender stereotypes. That is feminism, not queer theory. Neither they nor their characters were any less female for breaking stereotypes. Either in reality, or in the views of people at the time and the brontes themselves.

Queer theory promotes the idea that the stereotypes you cling to actually indicate your sex. That by breaking a stereotype imposed on women, you’re actually not a woman. In other words, that stereotypes should be upheld.

I think it is a rather dishonest representation to declare that every person who writes or does something that doesn’t follow sexist stereotypes has anything to do with ‘gender identity’ at all. To suggest gender identity exploration was the motivation of the Brontes is essentially ideologically biased and very weak. It is retrofitting a modern day perspective.

I wholeheartedly agree that the sexism of the time (only improved a minuscule amount since then) prevented the Brontë sisters from publishing under their real names.

Therefore talking about them during Pride month, which is about sexuality and gender identity (not biological sex) is completely irrelevant.

If it was an equality day or a women’s day or a feminist day - yes.

But yet again we have a situation where biological sex/sexism is getting confused with gender.

If they still have the visitor comments book at the Bronte museum, you could write what you think in it?

Can't go unfortunately, so I shall write what I think here: What a load of crap.

I am usually the first to dislike all this.
But Shirley (by Charlotte B) was quite a shocking thing at the time because the heroine was called by what was then a man's name. I read it so long ago, that I can't remember much more than that, but didn't the heroine behave in a way outside of the gender stereotypes at the time?
I'm not banging the drum for one side or the other, but a stopped clock is right twice a day, and maybe it is worth exploring.

It is certainly meant to be masculine. As were they all. In Charlotte’s own words, in fact, as quoted by PP above.

The gender of the authors was hotly debated

The SEX of the authors was debated - but not by the authors themselves! Everyone involved knew that the authors were either male or female. The authors themselves knew they were female. Furthermore, it was because they were female that they used pseudonyms. Not because they thought they weren’t!

<thunk>

They, as women, knew that they hadn’t a hope of being taken seriously.

In Charlotte's own words:

Adverse to personal publicity, we veiled our own names under those of Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by a sort of conscientious scruple at assuming Christian names positively masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women – without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called ‘feminine’ – we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice[.]”

I cant see any relevance in arguing whether 'Currer' or 'Ellis' were given names or not; if you looked hard enough you’d probably find one or two people with that name, but it’s beside the point as far as I can see.

Remember that all the children, Branwell included, had spent years inventing the vivid fantasy-worlds of Angria and Gondal in which they assumed the personas of dashing military men, dukes, duchesses, ladies, gentlemen….but that did NOT mean they had any confusion about their 'gender identity'. It’s called ‘imagination'.

Charlotte, Emily and Anne knew they were women - they'd had a lifetime of housekeeping, governessing and domestic drudgery from which Branwell was exempted by virtue of being a boy - and they damn well knew they'd be laughed out of any publisher’s office if they sent in a MS under their own names.

I'm a member of the Brontë Society, which used to be a reputable organisation, and bilge like this makes me furious.

I'm not sure of the point of that link to the Wikipedia page.

Minnie Gertrude Ellis Jeffreys (12 May 1868(?)[n 1] – 21 January 1943) was an English actress