Usbourne publishing calling mums transphobes

[Abite]

Go woke go broke

The boycott is not because of the book.

It's because of the reaction to people questioning the book.

Very shortsighted of Usbourne to call concerned parents, transphobic trolls. They need to apologise for that tweet if they want any more money from me. Trans ideology needs to be kept away from young vulnerable minds.

I'm being tweeted extracts from it and it's even worse than I thought it would be.

A book about a family with a trans person in it?
Failing to see the problem with that, to me this thread's all a bit section 28 = ie don't even educate children about it, it might mess with their heads and make them want to turn turn trans too!
I am old enough to remember when the exact same argument was formed for gay people, it wasn't allowed to be taught in schools for fear of "putting ideas in heads"
Not just plucked out of thin air, I've formed my opinion from comments such as Children getting their heads messed with by things they hear and read.
That just being one comment, there's more like it that's just an example.

Presented with no further comment than WTAF?

Image is a quotation from the book. Dee is the transitioning parent. Here is another quotation, from the Usborne teacher resource for the book.

When she’s talking to Dee about her transition, Izzy says, ‘He looks so sad that I want to reach out and hug him. But I’m still angry with him too. He’s supposed to be the grown-up, not me. He’s supposed to be the one comforting me.’ (p62) Do you agree with her? What role do you think Izzy plays across the novel in relation to Dee?

cdn.usborne.com/quicklinks-library/teachers_resources/Nothing-ever-happens-here-book-club-notes.pdf

For the benefit of Willis, who has clearly not RTFT, I will repeat something I said earlier.

It's not about which parent's "transitioning". Nor is it about "transitioning". The objection is that the book valorises children taking on the responsibility for parents. That's anti-safeguarding and perilously close to grooming.

Compare something like Jacqueline Wilson's The Illustrated Mum, where the mother has mental health issues. The narrative is that the children love their mum and their mum loves them but they are not responsible for their mum's wellbeing.

For the benefit of Willis, who has clearly not RTFT

Yes, I have actually.
I don't have to agree with you.

I’m old enough to remember section 28 too.
My stepdaughter, who wants a double mastectomy after an upsetting catcalling incident is only 13 though.
She was introduced to transmen/being non binary at school, where the counsellor suggested it might be the reason she hated her newly developed body? It’s not the reason, but it has been grasped on as a solution to growing up female and ‘queer’ (her words, not mine) under the male gaze.

So I think any comparison to section 28 is a load of bollocks, frankly.

Trans ideology in schools (and online and in popular culture) is harming the mental and physical health of adolescents who are grappling with new feelings of (often same-sex) sexual attraction, so it’s more or less the complete fucking opposite of section 28.

As in I don't have to agree with everything you say, not necessarily in relation to that comment you copy and pasted to me.

Like Lang, I'll repeat my comment as it seems unlikely Willis will meaningfully engage with^^ any comments written before their own, and it would be a shame if we were all detailed by an irrelevant discussion S28.

What upsets me about this, is given how much propaganda is pushed on wives that we should accept transition and ignore our own feelings, it worries me greatly that this strategy is now being used on children.

I would hate for any children to read this and to feel guilty that they are not being accepting enough because I think that could be very damaging to them. Gaslighting and emotional blackmail are bad enough when used against adults, but unforgivable when used against children.

My ex wanted me to read a book by a couple who had stayed together, to try and get me to think we might be OK. I declined. I can imagine Dad's who are going to transition giving this book to their children to tell them how they should feel and react

So last year John Boyne wrote a very similar book in “my brother’s name is Jessica” and got a huge amount of TRA abuse for his trouble because the main character was a family member of a transgender person rather than the trans gender person themselves. Whereas someone from Stonewall writes this with the same premise and TRAs whoop with delight.

A book about a family with a trans person in it?
Failing to see the problem with that, to me this thread's all a bit section 28 = ie don't even educate children about it, it might mess with their heads and make them want to turn turn trans too!

This is about sending the message that children are responsible for the feelings of adults. That they should have to make sacrifices, change their own lives, put work in, in order to validate the feelings of adults. That is the message that appears to come from this book, and it's incredibly damaging for children. It's not a child's responsibility to do those things and making a child feel like it is their responsibility is a tactic of abusers. Its not really to do with trans, or gay or whatever. It's to do with children and making them the priority.

Introverted Izzy has just started Year 8 and is wildly excited when her favourite teacher announces auditions for a Christmas production of Guys and Dolls. Though shy, she’s come to love acting because on stage she “could be whoever I wanted.” And Izzy’s not the only member of her family who wants - and needs - to be who they really are, as she discovers when her dad tells the family he’s transgender and is about to begin transitioning. Though he gently explains, “It’s nothing to be ashamed of, it’s nothing dirty, I’m not ill”, Izzy’s older sister reacts angrily, her little brother accepts it in the same way he understands Spider Man and Peter Parker’s different identities, while Izzy feels quiet worry about how their lives will change.
The family’s journey is honestly and sensitively portrayed as they endure hurtful prejudice alongside many heart-melting moments, such as the gorgeous scene in which the three siblings think-up their new name for Dad. This is at once an important support tool for children in similar situations, and a barrier-breaking, empathy-inducing story for all.

I mean... WTF?

What's with the sinister '-and needs-'...?

The comparison with fucking Spiderman?

'It's nothing dirty'....

Plus it sounds like a crappy story anyway, and is probably full of clichés, but obviously I would need to read the book to judge that.

So the teaching notes address directly whether the reader agrees with Izzy’s feeling that Dee (I presume the trans parent, but not clear from the quote out of context) needs her help.

That’s a good thing isn’t it? That’s expressly asking the reader to critically examine a character’s feeling at this point of the narrative.

Good to see some actual text, albeit a single sentence with no context.

Like PPs, I think the premise of the story, a girl child learning/being forced to put her own concerns and interests last to facilitate someone who is 1) a parent and 2) a male is extremely problematic. But I wouldn't buy Usborne books anyway because I think the house style is awful and I think of them as MLM junk. This debacle just reinforces my dislike.

So the teaching notes address directly whether the reader agrees with Izzy’s feeling that Dee (I presume the trans parent, but not clear from the quote out of context) needs her help.

That’s a good thing isn’t it? That’s expressly asking the reader to critically examine a character’s feeling at this point of the narrative.

Children should not be made to feel that they are responsible for the feelings of their parents. Ever. It shouldn't even be a question, that seed should never be planted.

What role do you think Izzy plays across the novel in relation to Dee?

What role do you feel that Izzy plays in relation to Dee, Retro? And do you recognise a leading question when you see one? Or notice that the framing is that the child defines itself against the parent?

Lang, I haven’t read the book. Neither have you.

So I’m not going to attempt a discussion of the plot line or characters.

Because none of us has read the book. So we don’t know what the characters do, think, feel, say, or learn or decide or anything else.

Because we haven’t read the book.

Happy to have the discussion if anyone want to actually read it, all the way through, and then talk about it.

It’s a standard literary criticism question format by the way:

What role does character x play in relation character y in the novel?

It’s very commonly used in primary and secondary level English classes and tests.

I expect that’s why it’s phrased that way, and no, I don’t think it’s a leading question. Often the same question is posed with x and y switched as well, to really get students to dig into the the subtleties of what “in relation to” means in this type of question.

A leading question, for example (And yes, I know no one has said this, it’s for illustrative purposes only), is “do you agree that usborne books are utter idiots for posting this anti-women tweet on their feed?”

Interesting... I don’t know how Usborne Books operate in the UK but here in the US they use a kind of MLM scheme to market books to parents. Usually a SAHM who needs a little extra income and sets herself up as an Usborne books seller to her network of friends, neighbours, family etc. Odd for a company that relies on that kind of network of parents to be promoting books about young girls ditching their boundaries to make sure their AGP
dad’s feelings are respected.

Then again there are probably as many woke crunchy moms out there who would love this kind of nonsense as there are TERF moms or closet-TERF moms out there who hate it. I can imagine a certain kind of parent in my area where I live in the US just loving this book, the kind of parent who takes their kid to Drag Queen Story Hour ‘because it teaches kids that it’s ok to be different’

@Retrofitted

The rationale for the proposed boycott is the "transphobic trolls" tweet. No one needs to have read the book to take exception to that tweet.

I can't see mothers buying it but, as suggested upthread, I can see AGP fathers deciding to give a copy to their kids. Very concerning.

It's just more of the myth that all families where this happens can and should accept, rejoice, and support. And somewhat preaching a way that kids SHOULD feel and act in this situation. I rather baulk at parents not putting their kids first, and kids having to put a parent before themselves... this is the experience of the transwidows and their kids on the whole. People can write whatever books they want, but it's a narrow and disappointing perspective. Actually if anyone's read the lived experiences of transwidows and their kids, there's a vast untold story of very unhappy, betrayed and unconvinced women and children out there. It's tedious to see that the singular, families-that-stay-together daytime-tv narrative gets published... Particularly as it's not written by anyone who's experienced this (whether positive or negative), just a Stonewall campaigner. So it's kind of directive Stonewall opinion rather than experience or just fiction. I guess the unheard remain invisible and anonymous because they can't speak out for fear of being called transphobic. So we're stuck with the one narrow version only in the public space. So just don't forget, this book is written by a Stonewall campaigner, not a person who's experienced this. Her research appears to have been with families that remain intact after transition, not those where transitioners are estranged or leave so she has a narrow frame of reference which probably won't help kids feeling terrible anyway and will just pile on the guilt and shame they already feel about their experience (the shame being that they shouldn't feel this way, which the book does a great job of reinforcing). I'm afraid I'm more concerned for the welfare and feelings of affected children and teens than for the feelings of older transitioners who make that choice having had kids. Hugely invalidating for those kids...

Not that anyone cares but my reason for not buying from them again is that they have the gall to call women, transphobic trolls. Just who do they think their target audience is? Guess what Usbourne it's not the blue-hair brigade.

Isnt the definition of a troll someone pretending to be what they're not online. So if we are transphobic trolls then we aren't really transphobic surely?

The woke brigade really need to get their linguistics untangled. They've overused and misused and convoluted their viles and their terfs and their literal violence and their women are what we say they are and their online insults so much that none of it means anything anymore.