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’m late to the party on this one. I like Pratchett and don’t really care what his view would have been. I have always thought his ideas were critical of enforced gender roles, and Cheery:Cherry was definitely an early proponent for the truth of Invisible Women, I never read that character as having gender dysphoria, and the two washer women characters in Monstrous Regiment seemed to me to be a gentle dig at the ridiculousness of men in dresses.

No doubt Pratchett was a flawed character and the joy of Vimes and Weatherwax were that they were also flawed.

I’m sure his daughter and Gaiman are protecting their income streams. Money and cognitive dissonance often go hand in hand!

Its led to Neil Gaiman showing his true colours too in his exchanges with Glinner

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/neil-gaiman-is-a-misogynist-ghoul?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

I was a fan of Gaiman but always felt him to be a tad overrated. Just like his estranged wife though they seem to wade into this issue without any regard for women whilst at the same time making out they are so cool and down to earth and a friend of everyone.

I was more of a fan of Amanda Palmer than gaiman but went right off her when she got into arguments on Twitter with fans who took issue with her making the venues at her gigs gender neutral when she played. With the old argument of "not my fans" when it came to those saying that they don't want men in the toilets at gigs due to what could happen.

Was doubly relevant for me as the last time i saw her it was my daughters first time seeing her and at that time she was having a bad episode of her anxiety and depression and had gone off on her own to the toilet a couple of times as she was feeling panicky. We left the gig early in the end becuase of how she was feeling - now this was before palmer decided that she would open up the ladies toilets to anyone so was lucky as I know if my daughter had gone off to the toilets the way she was feeling and was confronted by males it would have caused massive distress.

Worth pointing out, perhaps, that back in 2015, a lot of the posters on this forum would have been very sympathetic to trans rights and fully on board with the idea that we should treat trans people as the sex they identify with. Most people on here, I would guess, have peaked in the past three years in the face of trans over-reach.

Pratchett never saw the death threats, the lies, the reporting of women to their employers, the physical assaults, the hounding of lesbians for same-sex attraction. I'd like to think he was a good enough person that he'd have deplored all that. Still, his daughter seems to think otherwise.

@Worldgonecrazy

.

I’m late to the party on this one. I like Pratchett and don’t really care what his view would have been. I have always thought his ideas were critical of enforced gender roles, and Cheery:Cherry was definitely an early proponent for the truth of Invisible Women, I never read that character as having gender dysphoria, and the two washer women characters in Monstrous Regiment seemed to me to be a gentle dig at the ridiculousness of men in dresses.

No doubt Pratchett was a flawed character and the joy of Vimes and Weatherwax were that they were also flawed.

I’m sure his daughter and Gaiman are protecting their income streams. Money and cognitive dissonance often go hand in hand!

So you think his work was critical of enforced gender roles but also that he was mocking the idea of men wearing dresses?

@Worldgonecrazy

and the two washer women characters in Monstrous Regiment seemed to me to be a gentle dig at the ridiculousness of men in dresses

Yes, but it always struck as more than that - a comment on the way rigid stereotypes (and, clearly, misogyny) stop you seeing the bleedin' obvious right in front of your nose!

That is fucking cruel. Then faux concerning for his mental health on twitter.

Gaslighting 101, usually reserved for women in a "don't listen to her, she's crazy" way. They really have done a smear on anyone with a GC belief, yeah ignore the right wing nutters who want trans people to die - just for saying that sex exists and it matters

Refusing to condemn specific threats to JKR or the tiniest acknowledgement that yes, there IS a difference between a female and a male who says he's a female too. GL isn't the crazy one here sunshine

So you think his work was critical of enforced gender roles but also that he was mocking the idea of men wearing dresses?

Yes. Because that scene is not just about men wearing dresses. It’s about men wearing dresses and thinking that it stops people clocking them as men. That’s the ridiculous part, not that the men are wearing dresses.

Pratchett never saw the death threats, the lies, the reporting of women to their employers, the physical assaults, the hounding of lesbians for same-sex attraction.

I agree.

Oh I'm sorry, do the people making all the money feel bad? I shall try again then.

Yes @RoyalCorgi, I was one of them.

That is until organisations saw the £ signs and took the mickey. And now we have blockers for children, and surgeries barely past puberty, bringing in the cash.

And a whole umbrella of people affirmed as woman gender, now claiming everything women ever gained for their own.

All the things women ever fought for, all gone - for greed and for males.

I've just seen this being retweeted and liked by thousands as though it's some sort of proof of Pratchett's 'side': 'Terry whomst, at a book signing, asked my name, and being a young egg, I told him, adding "for now" so he leaned in, asked what it will be, and signed my copy of Guards Guards ambiguously enough that it can be read either way.'

What that could equally be used to show is that Terry was polite and kind to fans, and wise enough to know that people, especially young people, may feel one way about something right now but could well change their mind in the future, so he didn't pin them down with a name and identity (which is rather what the puberty blockers route ends up doing for almost all).

Its led to Neil Gaiman showing his true colours too in his exchanges with Glinner

I think Gaiman is probably aware that he's two steps from being cancelled by the woke crowd and is desperately trying to show that he's still cool and down with the kids and not just another old, rich, straight, white man.

I remember a few years ago there was a thing on social media where people were making a point of reading fewer books by white men, lots of them displayed pictures of Gaiman in a red circle with a line through it.

Then there's his novel Anansi Boys, based on the west African myth of the spider god. If Gaiman puts a foot out of line he could easily be accused of cultural appropriation, and I bet people would suddenly be finding offensive racial stereotypes in the book that had somehow never been spotted before.

And then there's the fact that most of his novels are about white men, while being lambasted for stepping out of his lane with Anansi Boys he could simultaneously be accused of not representing minorities in his other works.

And of course there's his questionable behaviour in his personal life- not least being leaving his wife and young son alone in a foreign country during a global pandemic, while he flew halfway round the world and then immediately drove up most of the length of Britain.

Of course I could be overthinking this and he might just be a misogynist.

It would be nice if he just shut up about it though after making his feelings known, instead he is choosing to prolong the Twitter furore.

I see they are filming Good Omens 2. I feel uneasy about this. I don't think Gaiman could pull it off without Pratchett.

There are two separate questions really:

• can you read Pratchett's books through a GC lens. (Yes, definitely!)
• would Pratchett the person, were he alive today, nod along with TWAW because in his lifetime he was quite invested in being 'liberal' and 'progressive' and 'kind' and 'freethinking'? (Also likely to be yes, though we can't possibly know for sure.)

It's perfectly possible to say "we can't tell from a dead person's books what their views on 2021 gender and sex theory would be" AND "the Terry Pratchett I knew and loved would definitely be one of the men lining up to show off their progressive credentials by saying TWAW".

I think you have to remember that Twitter is the worst place to discuss most things. It entrenches and polarised disagreement when in RL people are much more likely to build on agreement.

(Although that is also why people can come away from a conversation in RL understanding completely different things).

The only surprising thing is that people known for their writing ability are just as likely to be sucked in to a Twitter spat as anyone else.

Polarises

I’m sure his daughter and Gaiman are protecting their income streams. Money and cognitive dissonance often go hand in hand!

Gaiman maybe but I don't think Rhianna Pratchett is, I think she's responding because she believes "Gender Critical" means the hideously distorted boogeyman definition that is being promoted by TRAs. I don't think anyone would ever expect Pratchett, or any other reasonable human being, to agree with that.

In one Pratchett forum I lurk on, I saw it play out in real time. A few asking what GC means. TRAs proclaiming GC is what transphobes call themselves and its people who hate trans people and want them.not to exist. A few people at the start saying no, that's not what GC is and getting piled on. Then the mods deleted all the posts trying to clarify GC leaving just the TRA narrative as "fact". The dominant story now is a bunch of transphobes invaded and were blocked. Many people triumphantly declaiming the "hatred" of others who cannot respond because anything they say other than complete capitulation and denial of their own knowledge is taken as proof.

It's the ducking stool, the pin and the fire. It is fucking kafkaesque and it's terrifying.

I've lost so much respect for various people in the fandom because of all this. The bad faith arguments, hyperbole, weaponising of suicide, and handwaving or cheering on violence against women who have opinions that they don't like is particularly depressing from people I've usually found to be open-minded and rational.

@GAHgamel

I've lost so much respect for various people in the fandom because of all this. The bad faith arguments, hyperbole, weaponising of suicide, and handwaving or cheering on violence against women who have opinions that they don't like is particularly depressing from people I've usually found to be open-minded and rational.

Yes. It's like they've read the books and taken away the "good guys are tolerant and not bigoted" part - which is obviously important and true, but also pretty much what they have got from all their media all their lives anyway so not really anything to challenge them, and totally missed the "good guys respect that people are complete humans who need opportunities, trust and role models to find their own moral way not rules to force them into someone else's idea of moral absolutes" bit, which is the true humanity and also the thing that is hard when you are so sure you are right.

So they missed that true evil in the Pratchettverse is not the bigots, but those who assume the right to direct people's minds. The bigot can be saved - Vimes started out as a bigot - but the totalitarian crushes and corrupts others.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It would be nice if he just shut up about it though after making his feelings known, instead he is choosing to prolong the Twitter furore.

Gaiman's a businessman and knows how massive the trans obsession is in young online fandom, and he's courting it.

This whole thing is pathetic and undignified on the part of everyone concerned. Let the man rest in peace.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I see they are filming Good Omens 2. I feel uneasy about this. I don't think Gaiman could pull it off without Pratchett.

Apparently they mapped out the plot together years ago, just never had time to write it. I have hope.

Gaiman still posts on Tumblr. This is 100% career tactical.

@Waitwhat23

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?

I've wondered for quite a while now, whether the word critical is being misinterpreted by them as 'very important ', rather than as it is in this context, 'regard in a negative light' (that's a terrible definition of critical but I hope you know what I mean).