Author’s latest book shoehorns trans identified male into women’s friendship group.

The word is woman. Just woman. We’re not a subset.

I agree that women come in all shapes and sizes, and that shouldn’t be a marker for being female. However, referring to cis women does exactly that. Women can be 6 foot. Again, that’s all you need to say.

A woman that was born with a fanny, rather than a woman who wasn't.

And I see women referring to themselves that way a lot. If you choose not to, that's fine, I find with discussions like this (where it seems only trans women are allowed to be 'six foot') it helps clarify.

I just find it really unpleasant that if you're a woman who's tall, or has big hands or feet, that you're in some way not womanning properly, that only trans women have those things.

I did, and they looked the same to me. 🤷‍♀️ But sorry Sue, you might want to work on your SEO though.

I was going to guess Joanne Harris - her latest book has a beautiful passing fragile TIM character who joins a women's running club. I don't know what happened next as I stopped bothering with it. It was extra jarring as the theme of the book is a woman finding she has magical powers connected to her menopause. I did think even though she blocked me on X I might be able to still enjoy her books but apparently not.

What do you think a cis woman is, out of interest? I don't usually see women referring to themselves this way.

I couldn't care less what her views are as long as she doesn't use her books to shoehorn in a lecture about how trans women are women and we should all be kind. That's the point at which I'd stop buying her books.

What does "pro trans" even mean, anyway?

Just women - no need for the cis. There are women, and men who present their idea of womanhood to the world.

OP, thanks for this heads-up, I'll make sure and give Milly and her man-pandering a wide berth.

Some cis women are six foot tall, you know? I'm one of them. Not sure why you made a point of mentioning that.,

She's pro-trans, yeah. Though presumably this doesn't matter to you if it doesn't come up in her books?

If you look at Milly Johnson's and Sue Moorcroft's websites they are different people.

It really isn't. I know both of these women, and they are very separate individuals.

Yeah, that's just ridiculous and insulting.

The thing is though, I'm pretty sure Milly Johnson's readership mainly consists of older women. Surely quite a lot of them will be turned off by this?

But Ruth is a character in her own right. She's not supposed to be the literary manifestation of you or me or any other person.

If I met a trans woman in a professional context, the way Ruth meets Janet, then as long as they did not behave in an inappropriate way, I would react exactly as Ruth does. If I were to meet either of the people I know who have transitioned since the last time I saw them, I would be perfectly polite about it. Yes, I would be thinking, "You're not really a woman though, are you?" but unless it was actually relevant to our interaction, there would be no need to mention it.

I don't think we necessarily need to "hear" Ruth thinking TERFy thoughts in order for it to be OK that there is a trans character in the book. We hear about Ruth's other beliefs a lot, for example, we know that she is anti Tory and opposed to private education, and we know that she is a staunch atheist. We also know that there are other characters in the book who are perfectly likeable, sympathetic characters and hold diametrically opposing beliefs, such as Michelle wanting her kids to go to private school and Cathbad's spiritual beliefs. I think it's clear to me that there is room in the books for diversity of opinion and belief, and also that if Ruth particularly cared one way or the other that TWAW or TWAM, we would hear about it. Personally I'm fine with the idea that Ruth doesn't care as strongly about trans issues as she does about other things.

I’m don’t agree - you’ve missed off the end if that quote where Janet says something like “and now I’m a woman” and Ruth just accepts that. So I disagree that there’s an acceptance that both accept Janet as male. Ruth doesn’t have to say anything to Janet but equally we are privy to Ruth’s thoughts, which are strangely absent here.

The trans character in The Silkworm is clearly mentally ill.

They should really see a doctor about that...

I was reading a US romance with ghosts in it (yes trashy but fairly well written) - a very minor character was always referred to as 'they/them' - as it was already a bit supernatural I spent ages wondering if this person (who was never given much of a physical description) was actually 2 people or a person possessed by a ghost - but it never came up so I assume was meant to be non-binary. In written prose they/them for 1 person is very confusing!

Yes @MissScarletInTheBallroom i have no problem with trans characters in books. It’s when they’re shoe horned in and used as a device to enable the author to expound at length that they are totally actual women & anyone who doesn’t agree is an evil bigot.

But it's made absolutely clear that both Ruth and Janet understand that Janet is male.

What would you rather, that Ruth said, "Oh, I'm not going to talk to you or listen to your professional expertise because you're a man pretending to be a woman"?

The historian Janet Meadows.

It's really interesting that you've read all the books and can't remember there being a trans character because that shows it was really nicely done. I actually think it's a masterclass in how to include a trans character in your books without hijacking your own plot or pissing people off.

The first time Ruth meets Janet is in a professional context and she immediately clocks that Janet is a male to female transsexual. And Janet sees that Ruth has noticed and says, "Yes, that's right, I used to be a man." There's no coy pretence that Janet passes or that you can't even tell, which would be irritating in any book but particularly in a book where the protagonist routinely digs up skeletons and pronounces them to be male or female.

The purpose of Janet's character is to provide historical context, and that's generally what happens. The fact that Janet is trans is usually only referred to each time the character is reintroduced in a new book and it feels like it's just to serve as a reminder of who Janet is. But it's completely peripheral to the plot and it never gets political. (I'm currently on book 13 and hoping it won't turn into the "Janet Meadows is a real woman" show with a token evil TERF in it before the end of the series.)

There was a trans character in one of the early Cormoran Strikes books too. If we agree that trans people should be allowed to exist in society (which I do), surely it's OK for them to be represented in literature too?

If I were a writer and wanted to include a trans character in one of my books, this is how I would do it.

I don't know why that is underlined!😂

Some good feminist novels I've read recently are Vox, and the 2 novel series, Moths and Toxxic. Both dystopian fiction. Vox is about a world where women are only allowed to say 100 words a day, and Moths/ Toxxic is about a virus that only affects men!