Terry Pratchett - Twitter

[Baystard]

Terry Pratchett and Monstrous Regiment trending on twitter this morning, claims that GC community trying to posthumously recruit Sir Terry, and his daughter saying he would be appalled, etc.

As a Pratchett enthusiast I'm a bit lost. Some people are quoting about dwarves, but I thought in their culture it was unacceptable to be anything but male, and that Cherry was biologically female but repressed by culture into hiding it. I didn't interpret Pratchett as meaning that dwarves were all biologically male and that Cheery was trans. Have I missed something?

I thought Pratchett sold out women here by reinforcing that dwarves who were female were gendered as feminine - they were just repressing it. Patriarchy acted to suppress women's natural urges towards heels and sparkes and once 'liberated' this is what female dwarves 'naturally' gravitated towards.

I thought in their culture it was unacceptable to be anything but male, and that Cherry was biologically female but repressed by culture into hiding it.

Dwarf culture didn't have sex-specific gender expression. Dwarves didn't signal their sex in any way - basically no secondary sexual characteristics (both sexes have beards), and no clothing conventions.

But this had lapsed into something of a male-default, perhaps. The single gender to conform to maybe suited males more.

Cherry wanted to conform more to human female presentation. Dwarves found any indication of being female objectionable.

She was something of a foil to the earlier-established charactor Carrot, who was a human dwarf... (A human raised by dwarves, who was only told he was human when he reached adulthood. He just thought he was a bit tall).

I find it hard to see Cherry's story as being a direct analogue to either the GC or TRA side. I can see aspects of both. Dwarf culture was maybe a worst of both worlds of what TRAs and GCs would like to see, so she was rebelling against both, perhaps.

Pratchett was humane, intelligent and intellectually curious so I doubt he'd have been as unquestioningly incurious about the several-thousand-percent increase in teenage girls wanting to become males or otherwise reject femaleness during a period of increasingly violent and misogynistic, freely available porn, the motivations of certain lobby groups, or think 'this is fine' when a biological male wants to sit naked in a formerly safe space for naked women and girls, and I certainly can't see him going along with Laurie Penny's claim that GC feminists are anti-semites, as his onetime literary collaborator Neil Gaiman has just done.

Just saw what was going on and that his daughter has waded in to say STP wouldn't be GC.

It's so clear from the comments that follow the waters of what GC is have been successfully muddied . A smear campaign on predominantly women who reject stereotypes on their sex. Women who do not want those stereotypes to take precedent over biological sex. Who have understandable concerns with feelings given more importance than reality and what it means for everyone, from protected spaces, to healthcare, to our children.

But noooooo, we're all just right wingers who hate trans people and want them to die. We're all using the above as a cover for our hateful views

RP keen on reading a thesis on someone who clearly uses a blocker, but clearly not interested in posters trying to explain what GC actually means. No. Hyperbole wins again. People posting 'shut the fuck up' memes, rape threats to JKR feel emboldened. Great.

I love STP's books. I love the work RP did with the Tomb Raider game. I am a left winger with a young daughter I hope to raise as a strong woman who will not be limited by her sex. But I will not have her roll over to make way for males feelings. And for this I'm a hateful transphobe?

Fuck sake.

I've seen many TRA's trying to co-opt Cherry as trans when it's blatantly obvious (to me at least) that dwarf society was 'male default' and women were seen as less than. Cherry receives many vile insults from the deep downers because she is a woman, rather than the fact she's wearing a skirt and lipstick. I think Pratchett (a sensible and kind man from all accounts) would have been astounded by the anti women sentiments which seems to be societies norm at the moment.

I really don't see how Cheery could be seen as trans.

She was a female dwarf who conformed to dwarfish female social norms (which just happened to be the same as those for male dwarfs). When she moved to a mainly human society she started to conform to human female social norms.

So basically a female presenting as female. That doesn't seem at all transgender to me.

Pratchett would, I feel, have mainly been interested in the stories people tell themselves.

I always felt Vimes and Granny Weatherwax were the two characters closest to the author's voice. Esme was always sharply aware of people's ability to deceive themselves, and how important it was to acknowledge and defer to reality. I think of that coda at the end of Maskerade where she has to get her house back in order, and finally get around to experiencing her sword wound.

And Vimes was always very, very cynical about any pretention or claim to being better than others. He was made to suffer by constant promotion through the peerage.

As he said once - "Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk."

Can't really see Pratchett putting up with the sort of stuff we see from TRAs, and I can't imagine anything less than unequivocal support of JKR.

But still, I've been disappointed. Stephen King greatly disappointed me. I always held him as someone with a somewhat strong perception of people in the same sort of way. Although not in Pratchett's league, and I guess he has the disadvantage of being American. I know it is different there.

@TheIncredibleBookEatingManchot

I really don't see how Cheery could be seen as trans.

She was a female dwarf who conformed to dwarfish female social norms (which just happened to be the same as those for male dwarfs). When she moved to a mainly human society she started to conform to human female social norms.

So basically a female presenting as female. That doesn't seem at all transgender to me.

I agreed with this.

As an aside, I am so disappointed in Neil Gaiman

Just saw what was going on and that his daughter has waded in to say STP wouldn't be GC.

But is there any sign that she actually understands what "GC" means? She'd have to convince me of that first.

If she means "he wouldn't be a transphobe", then sure. But then neither are we.

Dispiriting stuff on Twitter on this theme. Interesting that quite a few people are saying that RP must automatically know best what her father meant in his works. I know they were close, but really? Your closest blood relative understands your work better than anyone else? I bet Kingsley Amis would have had a few choice words for anyone trying to claim that Martin Amis would be better placed than anyone else to explain posthumously what his dad really thought on any given issue.

I was fond of Terry Pratchett but the world is full of disappointing men and I'm afraid I have no compelling reason to believe he'd have been any different. It doesn't change the truth though.

In re Neil Gaiman, I'm choosing to separate the author from the work. His life choices have been questionable for some time.

The entire premis of Monstrous Regiment was that women felt restricted by the roles society expected of them and the only way to do what they wanted was pretend to be men. None of them actually believed themselves to be male - it was a satire on societies limited social roles.

Extraordinary. I ran my eye down the Rhianna P thread on Twitter, and found this, about "Monstrous Regiment", from a transgender poster:

I just can't imagine a GC would write a book wherein a group of women are graciously allowed to escape punishment for being women if they go back to pretending to be men, but refuse to take the offer because they deserve to have their accomplishments recognized as women

There are so many posts in the same vein.

What do the Trans lobby think GC positions are, and how did this happen?

Now, I'm a great Pratchett fan, and I have read all his books many times (often in the bath). The post quoted above is how I read the book as well, though I can easily imagine a gender critical author writing such a book. Have I got it wrong? If so, would someone please do me the great kindness of handing me my arse clearly and preferably succinctly?

Most of these people on Twitter aren't exactly the most thoughtful, well read individuals and they don't come across challenging views that much as they often block people they don't like. So they don't understand them apart from the warped spin the TRAs put on them.

@Binglebong I just read the Twitter thread mentioned and the amount of TRA's gleefully using Monstrous Regiment as a gotcha for Pratchett's beliefs is depressing. In the book, one of the soldiers presents as male because she has gone through so much trauma because of her sex. She doesn't believe she's actually a woman, but uses a male presentation as armour.

Isn't that what most GC women are expressing worry about? That young women are so scared/traumatised etc from going through puberty and realising gender expectations, that they instead choose to transition as a 'safe' option? Not realising that opting out of girlhood/womanhood still doesn't stop the risks experienced to their unchangeable sex.

I have always had a lot of time for Rhiannon - this is disappointing.

Just saw what was going on and that his daughter has waded in to say STP wouldn't be GC.

Who claimed he would be? Where did this come from?

Pratchett was humane, intelligent and intellectually curious so I doubt he'd have been as unquestioningly incurious

I don't think he'd have been obstinately incurious and inhumane towards trans people.

There's nothing intellectually curious about obsessively clinging to rigid gender binary, even if you call it "sex-based" instead.

I always remember Terry Pratchett saying that he started out writing books for teenage boys.

Then he discovered it was their mothers who were reading them 🤷‍♀️

I was one of those mothers.

@NecessaryScene from what I've read on the thread so far, no she doesn't and she isn't interested either. Happy to accept the "a transphobe" definition which is lazy arsed BS but there you go 🤷‍♀️

I've never read TP books, I tried once but it's not really my thing and I couldn't get into them. So I can't comment on what his books suggest about his character.

I don't think there's much point in anybody speculating what a deceased person may have thought about anything (that they didn't discuss when alive). We can't ever know so there's zero point having the argument.

@JustSpeculation it's astounding isn't it? The women in the novel join the army for many reasons including wanting a fuller life than the one offered to them as women in a patriarchal, very restrictive society. They are excluded from joining the army due to their sex so choose to pretend to be men. They are very aware they are still women (there's a whole theme about them having to stick socks down their trousers to make it look convincing!). They win the war as women and the army become aware that they are women. Instead of the army finally admitting women (as women) into service and commemorating the women for tekr great feat, they are expected to continue to present as men in order to continue the facade.

Instead of looking at the book as an example of the limits put on women by a patriarchal society and how they have to disguise themselves as men (with obvious links to real life female pirates and surgeons) in order to do the things they want to (have adventures, search for their brother, escape a horrible life in a girl's workhouse being raped by the staff), the TRA's co-opt it as the women wanting to be men.

What do the Trans lobby think GC positions are, and how did this happen?

They don't listen to us, don't read what we write. They tell flat out lies about what we think and tell their acolytes not to read what we say, because it's "harmful".

Most of these people on Twitter aren't exactly the most thoughtful, well read individuals and they don't come across challenging views that much as they often block people they don't like. So they don't understand them apart from the warped spin the TRAs put on them.

Ah, yes. I overlooked that. I'm just a casual tourist on Twitter. I have never lived there.

As an enormous fan of Sir Terry, I'm absolutely livid that anyone should try and appropriate his works to further their cause.
How bloody dare they.

The watch has been televised as is currently on iplayer.

Cheery is portrayed as trans which I took as 'it's a bit woke, but I don't think he'd totally disapprove'
It's not the only tweak, but that always happens when something moves from the page to the screen in any case