Phillip Pullman

[Dollpiglet]

I'm not a huge user of Twitter but I do follow Phillip Pullman who seems to have stepped out on this issue now. I'm gutted!

twitter.com/PhilipPullman/status/1417467807873241088?s=19

Breathe, yes. The man is a gutless wonder. Throws a hand grenade and sits back while everyone takes his bait. I actually despise him.

Noticed a lot of TRAs giving misleading or downright dishonest answers to his 'GC' question.

Some TRAs genuinely think gender critical means upholding gender stereotypes.

@NotTerfNorCis

Noticed a lot of TRAs giving misleading or downright dishonest answers to his 'GC' question.

Some TRAs genuinely think gender critical means upholding gender stereotypes.

🥴 Stay away from the trans cult, kids. It makes you stupid.

@ValancyRedfern

justspeculation that book sounds fascinating.

His Dark Materials is literally about how evil it is to freeze kids pre-puberty. What an absolute tool.

Yes, i find it totally bizarre that he wrote that trilogy and yet seems to not want to see the parallels.

Some TRAs genuinely think gender critical means upholding gender stereotypes.

They either believe this or it suits their purposes to try to convince others that this is what 'gender critical' means.

I honestly believe that Pullman is taking the absolute piss out of women. He knows his books can be interpreted as pro-GC so he can 100% see the issues. He takes a lot of pleasure in hurting his female readers who probably placed a lot of faith in him...that he would understand. He is one of those men who like to kick vulnerable people when they're down, I think.

He is utterly revolting and I hope women now stop trying to see humanity within this man. Many, many men have sacrificed their humanity JUST to dominate women. We rise above them.

I think he and Neil Gaiman both have been secretly enjoying watching JK burn otherwise why not keep their wokey blokey mouths shut? However "Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than forty-seven times in various disguises."
— Bathilda Bagshot, A History of Magic

Also should mention that all my kids gave up on his books saying they found them humourless and boring. Even though I read them all it was a chore, and felt like a tediously long children's book written by an adult who does not like children.

I've only read one of his books, 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ'. I can honestly remember very little about it, except that I read it quickly as it was quite short and the prose style very plain. I find a lot of professional atheists like him to be tiresome and pompous, they seem to just enjoy trying to demonstrate their superior intellects - often imagined - by pre-empting what they assume to be others' ignorance on any given topic and trying to set you straight before you've even hinted at your opinion (I had in-laws like this who assumed because I had done a humanities degree I must be an irrational creature who believed in auras, fairy dust and the like). That said, at least Dawkins has now hinted at gender critical leanings, although it's about time. Funny how so many atheists swell with pride at how very reasonable they are and how brave to take on religiosity, except on the concept of female and male souls, or 'female brains' accidentally put (by who - god? The brain fairy?) into male bodies.

I hope Kit is a bit like he's portrayed on Upstart Crow.
Or like Blackadder's Lord Flasheart. Woof!

@LastSummerHere

I honestly believe that Pullman is taking the absolute piss out of women. He knows his books can be interpreted as pro-GC so he can 100% see the issues. He takes a lot of pleasure in hurting his female readers who probably placed a lot of faith in him...that he would understand. He is one of those men who like to kick vulnerable people when they're down, I think.

He is utterly revolting and I hope women now stop trying to see humanity within this man. Many, many men have sacrificed their humanity JUST to dominate women. We rise above them.

Looks like the reason he’s so good at describing dystopian worlds where women are second class citizens who are treated badly is because he’s on that side

@OldCrone

Some TRAs genuinely think gender critical means upholding gender stereotypes.

They either believe this or it suits their purposes to try to convince others that this is what 'gender critical' means.

IMO the majority know it suits their purpose to misrepresent what GC means. KM and others have been corrected but shortly after just revert to their original misrepresentation. That can’t be a mistake.

It’s all an attempt to paint GC people as right wing, lovers of gender stereotypes, haters of GNC people - when, in fact, the complete opposite is true. They know that and they hate that so they constantly have to misrepresent the GC position.

The gender identity ideology is based on fundamental falsehoods, including as lead tenets: people can change sex and they have male souls, female souls, or non-binary souls. Once people have embraced these kinds of things, then it's easy to say anything that promotes the ideology and its factual or fictitious nature is neither here nor there: puberty blockers are wholly reversible, any approach that isn't 100% affirmation leads to large numbers of children committing suicide, detransition is incredibly rare, JKR is a font of hatred against trans people, and on it goes. They will say anything, following the Trump approach that the only criterion is that it makes an impact.

@HelenJoyce

Never thought I’d say it, but when I read tweets like this it makes me thankful TP died when he did. I couldn’t bear it if he did similar.

Sorry but this is a terrible thing to say.

We've got Pullman, Dawkins. Others?

I think it's a combo of things:

They think of themselves as rebels against the mainstream. So clever they can see through societal structures and norms that the average person is blind to. Radical thinkers. Naturally they will be in favour of a thing which feels modern and challenging to the average sheep. They're still relevant, see?!

...In fact bog standard white fellas getting on a bit. With the stereotypical biases that come with that. (NAOWMALT). And who are the most stick in the mud, incapable of any depth of thought group who are always speaking when it's not their place to? Women of course (mummy).

@LastSummerHere

Breathe, yes. The man is a gutless wonder. Throws a hand grenade and sits back while everyone takes his bait. I actually despise him.

It's all just entertainment to to people like him, isn't it?

Women being raped in prison. Children having irreversible medical treatment which they can't consent to.

What sort of person finds all that amusing?

They see themselves as keen to look deeply into issues and use their superior intellect to come to the RIGHT conclusion. They welcome debate and fairly hear all sides.

... But sadly that is not the reality. So many men esp older generally respected etc. Do NOT like being disagreed with. Esp by those they deem to be inferior due to education, age blah etc.
They will deign to discuss if the other person is suitably deferent when they say their piece. Things like. Yes that's a very good point and makes sense but I wonder if you would consider maybe xyz. Straightforward no I don't agree etc is disrespectful and can be ignored.

And of course the unparalleled confidence to wade into complex or sensitive topics that they know sod all about. Safe in the knowledge that they definitely know all about it and are right and anyone who points out they don't. Is challenging their great knowledge and superior intellect and ability to always be right. And that is the worst behaviour of all and again. They can be ignored.

'its all just entertainment to to people like him, isn't it?

Women being raped in prison. Children having irreversible medical treatment which they can't consent to.

What sort of person finds all that amusing?'

One who sees that as an appeal to emotion. Distasteful. The approach of the simple minded, the not rigorous or rational, the ones with no decent argument.

Sitting back and watching people with inferior intellect present their pathetic arguments.

Enjoying the wonderful feeling of superiority that comes with it.

Would be my guess.

he's outdoing himself now
twitter.com/chimenesuleyman/status/1424690206159081472

Chimene Suleyman @chimenesuleyman
Ok so you just compared me and two other brown/Muslim women to ISIS and the Taliban? Is this a sick joke?

Quote Tweet
Philip Pullman @PhilipPullman
Replying to @LiseHencken and @NABurkinshaw
Critics of Kate Clanchy: is this the kind of support you welcome? Someone who thinks it's not necessary to read a book before condemning it? What a shameful attitude. It would find a comfortable home in Isis or the Taliban.

Someone who thinks it's not necessary to read a book before condemning it? What a shameful attitude. It would find a comfortable home in Isis or the Taliban.

I'm confused. Doesn't he normally side with people who think that books they disagree with should be burnt or shredded or not published at all? (And that people should definitely not read them first.)

I don't understand what's going on. It seems he thought the person he was replying to was discussing another author? But they were actually discussing Ayn Rand?

So he said that people should read books before judging them, but he meant to say that about a totally different book from the one that was then under discussion.

I do hope he's read Rachel Rooney's book now, then.

I find this tweet odd as I thought he'd gone full on in his commitment to the cause just like Gaiman

@nauticant

Rachel Rooney wrote the book My Body is Me and became Public Enemy No.1 to the trans activists. She had huge amounts of abuse but over the course of a year it had diminished.

Step up Philip Pullman:

twitter.com/RooneyRachel/status/1335539340676632576

who decided to freshen up the target on Rachel Rooney's back but in a unpleasant and underhand way. Notice by the way that Pullman's tweet tightly restricts who can reply. This goes well beyond cowardly.

I do hope he's read Rachel Rooney's book now, then

There's no way he read the book. what a hypocrite

In response to an author (Clara) calling for Rooney's book to be banned, Pullman said "Clara, I think you're wonderful. You have my full and unceasing support in this matter, as in everything else. It's hard to ignore the hateful voices who scream, but there are other voices that sometimes get drowned in the noise, and here's one."

So he said that people should read books before judging them
unless Authors don't have the right opinions, in which case he doesn't read their book and calls them a hateful voice.