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?

Love that "intellectual Turing test".
I am very prone to exploring strengths of my opponents position to the extent I sometimes come across as arguing on the opposite side to my real view. I think I would pass on most subjects. Maybe not on genderism though. I've genuinely tried hard to understand but there's just no logical underlying base. It's sexism all the way down. I can't even fake argue that. To be fair nor can its proponents as far as i have been able to find.

I am sure TP would be very sympathetic to anyone with GD - after all in one of the witches books it's made clear that making someone think they have been turned into a frog is far crueler than turning them into one, as well as not leaving you with a bag of squishy stuff. He understands that not matching the way you think you are is hard.

He also knew that you have to accept who you are- if you are six foot you can't work in a dwarf mine, no matter how well you know the ceremonies.

We can't know what TP would think. I am sure he would be kind but he was smart enough to understand things are not simple. Whichever side he came down on I feel sure he would put a lot of thought into in.

He understands that not matching the way you think you are is hard.

That did seem to be a recurring theme. There was some the more typical "rejected by your peers for who you are", but "not wanting to be who you are, but coming to accept yourself" was a more common and particularly Pratchett theme.

Again, Maskerade - Agnes coming to terms with not being Perdita. Either physically or mentally.

(I note that many claiming to be woman attempt to be so physically and claim to be so mentally, but never seem to notice that they're clearly not, mentally...)

It was 'gender-critical' Emma Hilton who started this suggesting that Pratchett would be on the GC side of thinking. The rebuttals are down to HER putting words in a dead man's mouth.

I believe she "started" it by quoting a long excerpt from Nation on how the Women's Place on the island was Women Only, and boys over a certain age weren't allowed in it.

So, no, not "putting words in a dead man's mouth".

It's a great book, by the way. I don't care what you think about feminism, it's a book you should read. I don't expect you to change your mind on anything as a result, but I think you'll have an enjoyable time reading it.

@BilindaB

It was 'gender-critical' Emma Hilton who started this suggesting that Pratchett would be on the GC side of thinking. The rebuttals are down to HER putting words in a dead man's mouth.

And of course, the total misrepresentation of what gender critical actually is.

Pretty much everyone I've seen condemning the idea that STP would be gender critical has some weird idea that gender critical means "transphobic and in favour of rigid sex-based gender roles", which of course comes straight from TRA lies. "Don't read what they actually say, it's too too nasty, we will tell you so you don't have to suffer it".

It breaks my heart that kind and well-meaning people are being lied to and their good intentions manipulated.

This is the long quote Emma Hilton made from Pratchett. Tremendoisly moving, I think, and clearly demonstrates he knew exactly what a woman is, which is always the bottom line. He clearly had huge respect for women too.
mobile.twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1351295463773900803

It is painfully obvious that every gumby on Twitter repeating the line 'GC people believe in strict gender roles' are mindless parroting drones.

Thank you for the comments and discussion on this thread, I've found the twitter discussion upsetting.

Having recently re-read (or should that be pre-read!) Monstrous Regiment, which as others have written is about women escaping an existance forced upon them because of their biological sex, it is brain-aching to see how others interpret that as the characters being NB or transmen.

Whatever, I'm just pointing out who started it, and it wasn't the trans, and it wasn't Neil Gaiman or Pratchett's daughter.

I'm as GC as they come, but what is it at the moment with declaring dead people as 'GC/not GC' at the moment? What does it actually achieve, it just causes Twitter spats that no one is going to win because the person in question is dead and can't step in to clear things up!

I'm struck by the parroting of 'GC's believe in gender roles'.

Do they understand what words make up the acronym or are they just choosing to ignore it? If they know GC = gender critical, then what on earth do they think critical refers to?

There's also a strange similarity in many of the posts on the Twitter thread - almost like a script. Is 'GC's are transphobic and in favour of rigid sex-based gender roles' the new mantra to take over from no debate?

And as always, I'm struck by the differences in the calibre of the arguments put forward by each side. 'She started it!' - really?

@Waitwhat23

And as always, I'm struck by the differences in the calibre of the arguments put forward by each side. 'She started it!' - really?

I know 😀

I was just thinking that

It's all nonsense. I'm boggled, truly, that this is actually a genuine discussion. Well, I spose it's Twitter, so not really, but still.

Dead people don't have opinions on controversies that happen well after their death. It's one thing to look at their words and say that the words show evidence that they were a certain kind of person who approached things a certain way. But no one can say what they would have thought and done about something that wasn't actually happening when they were alive.

Next week, Alan Turing's musings on 5G towers, followed by Plato's authoritative pronouncements on the efficacy of facemasks against Covid.

also 'the trans'? Really? I'm a feminist who believes in the immutability of sex, and I would never call trans people 'the trans'.

@FloralBunting

also 'the trans'? Really? I'm a feminist who believes in the immutability of sex, and I would never call trans people 'the trans'.

And that!

Thought it was a bit rude 😳

@EvadneCake

Having recently re-read (or should that be pre-read!) Monstrous Regiment, which as others have written is about women escaping an existance forced upon them because of their biological sex, it is brain-aching to see how others interpret that as the characters being NB or transmen.

The only one you could possibly see as a transman is Jackrum, and it's clear from what she says throughout the book that she does not see herself as one (the repeated use of "I am not an ADJECTIVE man"). At the end she's obviously considering living as a man going forward, but that seems to be a pragmatic choice given the options available rather than some deep internalised identity.

I don't really care if STP was GC or not, posthumously or not. I just love his books. That's enough for me. In his writings he seemed like a decent sort of bloke who understands a lot about human nature.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

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

^ This, with bells on. Gaiman had been behaving like a cock.

Not read all the posts but had s look at the Twitter thingy.

I see posters saying they don't know what GC is, misrepresenting etc.

And on Twitter some trying to explain.

It's pointless in things like this.

The baddies have been identified. They are dishonest and evil. We know how they think and what they mean.

Trying to say well hold on its this and that will not be listened to full stop.

If someone has decided that X is what you believe. Then that's that.

The Twitter things are pretty niche and v polarised.

IRL hardly anyone thinks that a woman is anyone who says they are. That prisons etc should be mixed sex.

And IRL hardly anyone, no matter what they claim, believes that a person they know well, and know to be (tolerant, feminist, lesbian, lefty or etc) has suddenly turned into some kind of NF extremist.

IMO

I really enjoyed NG early books but I went off him for some reason years ago and I can't remember why! Something he wrote.

What Floral said.

Maybe I should stay off this thread as I clearly don't get it, but honestly all this fuss reminds me of when grown men and women were weeping over their lost hero....JKR.

I liked Pratchett but I've no idea whether he'd have stuck his neck out or not. Even if he didn't swallow the ideology he might well have kept quiet to keep the peace with his daughter - see Jonathon Ross.

It was 'gender-critical' Emma Hilton who started this suggesting that Pratchett would be on the GC side of thinking

My understanding is that she didn’t think ‘GC’ had been correctly understood by the people discussing it.

‘GC’ feminism has existed for a long time and doesn’t particularly have anything to do with trans people. It’s roots on mumsnet definitely precede the idea of self ID, e.g. the ‘Let Toys be Toys Campaign.’

Gender Critical people believe that women’s oppression is sex based and that gender is the tool used to oppress.

This obviously conflicts with Genderist ideology which supports the idea that people should be defined according to cultural expectations of gender and insists that most people have an innate female or male gender, which can often be ascertained by which toys they choose as children.

On the other hand, plenty of people who just believe that women need access to single sex services are not gender critical.

However I think I have said all this before on this thread, so maybe you aren’t interested?