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?

@FloralBunting

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.

What a beautiful passage! I haven't read Nation but I'll seek it out.

It's good to see how this whole thing started. The first I became aware of it was seeing a screenshot of just one of Emma's tweets, being tweeted at Pratchett's daughter by a well known and tedious tra. Can't remember the exact words they used but it was blatant shit stirring. I don't know if Pratchett's daughter ever read the whole of Emma's thread but I doubt it. None of the discussion that I saw was about Nation.

Are they saying that we can't read and enjoy Terry Pratchett's work and interpret it in the way it makes sense to us? That's a very odd position to take for a bunch of kids whose ideology has sprung from postmodernism. They should go back and re-read Derrida. As Helen Pluckrose says, '... one wonders why Derrida bothered to explain the infinite malleability of texts at such length if I could read his entire body of work and claim it to be a story about bunny rabbits with the same degree of authority.'

areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

If you publish a book, show an artwork or put any other creative thing out into the world then it's no longer part of 'you' - it's out there and you have no control over who likes it, who hates it or how it's interpreted and by whom. The author can say, 'no, that's not what I meant' but pomo theory says that the author's interpretation of their own work is not privileged over any individual reader's interpretation.

So we can all still enjoy Margaret Atwood's work even though she is the biggest most glaring example of cognitive dissonance that I have ever seen. And gender ideologists should not be afraid of continuing to love Harry Potter, even if JKR has said things they don't like. And we can all take what we take from Terry Pratchett's vast, rich, multi-layered body of work and it doesn't matter if we all interpret it differently.

Pomo would also not privilege TP's daughter as having the ultimate say in what he would have thought about any of this. As noted upthread, most people on this forum were still 'trans allies' in 2015 (then we got told to 'educate yourself', so we did and here we are) so it's all guesswork.

That probably sounds cruel but my Mum died earlier this year and I have been astonished and horrified by the massive differences in what my sister and I think Mum would have wanted, or what she would have thought about anything. Which of us should be the ultimate authority? We both think we are right because we are both drawing on our own separate relationships with her which were quite different. Neither of us should have the ultimate say in what she would have thought about anything, any more than her close friends or her minister, who had very close relationships with her which neither of us were party to, and who have surprised us with some of the views she expressed to them.

@merrymouse

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

Please look at this website. The threads on miscarriage, the threads on breastfeeding, the current thread on life changing injuries after birth.

You think these things happen to people randomly? You think they have anything at all to do with identity? You think you can identify out of the need for a C-section? Most women give birth, (hence continuation of human race) but to choose not to give birth women also need access to birth control. To work during and after pregnancy women need specific rights.

The difference between being forced into a gender role and having freedom is not the ability to have your identity affirmed, it is very specific rights that only affect women.

It’s mind boggling that in 2021 this still has to be explained. The only possible explanation can be sexism in men and denial in women.

👊

@StrangeLookingParasite "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).'

Interesting point. Most evidently haven't even bothered to read JKR's essay and have their news and views filtered through TRA block lists, the Like/Follow Police and the rest of their Inquisition, so that may be the case with some of those wading in, like Pratchett's daughter.

I'm not a fan of the name Gender Critical fwiw: it makes it sound like you are arguing from within their religion, like the word 'heretic' or 'apostate' as opposed to 'atheist'. I'd prefer something like just plain 'Realists', standing up for basic scientific facts, lived material reality, as opposed to those who are losing themselves in online echo-chambers and fantasy.

I really, really don’t want to derail the thread and get into a discussion about race or the ins and outs of progressive politics, but does the term ‘critical race theory’ refer to the importance of race? Is that causing confusion?

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).

I don’t think it’s even that complex in a lot of cases.

It’s just misogynists who have no issue with lying to smear women who disagree (see unfounded claims of anti-semitism, racism and homophobia).

I find Gaimans response to Glinner even more offensive when you look at him and his wife and their oh so right on attitude to trans issues when she wrote the song Sex Change from The Dresden Dolls second album.

I won't post the lyrics here in case my post gets deleted but take a look yourself and see if it lines up with their virtue signalling holier than thou public persona.

I have no problem with the song and its message and its one of the reasons I was such a big fan of Palmer for years as she was such a good songwriter/performer with alot to say about womens issues but then she undid all that with her TWAW stance and berating fans who pointed out the safety issues with making her gigs toilets open for everyone

The theory about the misinterpretation of the term 'gender critical' (and I am another who doesn't use the term, feminist and realist suffices) is interesting, but it rests on an assumption that the adherents of Genderism hold to words actually meaning things.

That's not how language works in that movement. It doesn't matter what a word actually means, what matters is whether it signifies if you are in the group or outside it, believer or hetetic.

On the most basic level the ideology considers the dictionary defintion of woman to be hate speech, and thinks a man can be a lesbian. I very much doubt they are applying any nuance at all to the word 'critical'.

That's not how language works in that movement. It doesn't matter what a word actually means, what matters is whether it signifies if you are in the group or outside it, believer or hetetic.

I’m not under any illusions about what genderists think.

However I also think that most people haven’t thought much about either this issue or feminism - see latest news letter from glosswitch.

tinyletter.com/Glosswitch/letters/the-ok-karen-34-read-the-books

I assume that this to them is like the debate on the tunnel under Stonehenge to me. I don’t know much about it but tend to assume that the people I generally agree with are right.

(Semi related I assume STP would have had something to say about ‘The Chalk’, and I would have nodded along, without bothering to check the details!)

Oh certainly the people who aren't that invested will skirt over it, and it's certainly possible they're reading critical in the sense of 'crucial', which is why I think it's an interesting theory.

So yes, as with most things - and I think the use of Karen is one - the uninvested don't give a lot of thought to the etymology or definition of terms.

Which means it's very much easier for genderists to leverage terms, using that exact mechanism of previously trusting someone's wisdom, kind of an extension of guilt by association but the other way around.

''In short, the pinks met so many reds and so few whites that they probably forgot about whites at all, while the whites, constantly alone or hugely outnumbered by reds or deep pinks, appeared to be going red out of embarrassment or a desire to blend in.''

Terry Pratchett describing how politics works; Night Watch is about how nothing actually changes after a revolution.

It must be very disheartening for certain writers to look at the medieval church-like mentality, threatening behaviour and thought-policing of TRAs who also profess to be fans or former fans of their books, though given the number of Star Wars fans who cosplay as Stormtroopers or Sith, perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.

That's interesting re a misunderstanding of 'gender critical'. I think there might also be people who think it means 'criticising' - GC feminists are ones who criticise other people's genders.

Something like "social model of gender" might be a better explanation. We believe gender is a set of social expectations and beliefs which are largely used to subjugate women, but which are also harmful for men. (And, analogous to the 'social model' of disability, we think most problems with gender can be solved by society making adjustments, not by medical treatments.)

This is why we should hold the line re: terms.

I am not a 'GC feminist' just like I don't wear a 'dark black' t-shirt or call myself a 'female woman'. I'm a feminist, and if you want to know, in amongst all the things that means, what I think about gender, I will explain that it's an arbitrary social system that disadvantages women, and enables the exploitation and control of women because of their sex, and the consequences of biology.

If I have to say all that to explain GC, or think up a new term to describe that which would still require me to explain it, I'll be dancing an endless linguistic tarantella and I am happy to leave that bollocks to the Genderists.

I'll keep the words, keep having conversations, and stand firm in the face of bullying, just as we have all done since this started. I won't concede woman, female or feminist. Ever. Especially not because of people who refuse to fairly listen and assess what I am saying.

Bunts you are brilliant. And yes, every word. I'm a feminist. It's not hard to understand.

I think there might also be people who think it means 'criticising' - GC feminists are ones who criticise other people's genders.

I think it's because these people reify "gender" as a concept, so any criticism of it is as you say, criticism of people's personalities, identity and individuality.

Their notion of 'gender' with dozens of little identity flags seems to have replaced the idea of a 'personality' or style/music tribes for that generation.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I think there might also be people who think it means 'criticising' - GC feminists are ones who criticise other people's genders.

I think it's because these people reify "gender" as a concept, so any criticism of it is as you say, criticism of people's personalities, identity and individuality.

No, it's just a label. They don't think about what the words mean or could mean or why someone picked them, because the first time they come across it it's in the context of someone whose statements they believe telling them "this is what transphobes call themselves". So they don't think any more than that because they think they have all the knowledge they need. It could be "lovely soft fluffy bunnikins" and they'd quickly see just as much hate in those words if someone told them it was there.

That's actually a really interesting point that TRA's might be considering critical from a 'very important' rather than 'critical of' standpoint and one that hadn't occurred to me. It completely misinterprets the GC feminist viewpoint (though I agree with pp that the term GC shouldn't be needed - just feminist should do) but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by that!

@Waitwhat23

That's actually a really interesting point that TRA's might be considering critical from a 'very important' rather than 'critical of' standpoint and one that hadn't occurred to me. It completely misinterprets the GC feminist viewpoint (though I agree with pp that the term GC shouldn't be needed - just feminist should do) but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by that!

I still really really doubt that any TRA has examined the phrase with that level of forensic analysis, and I've also never seen a TRA claim that is how the critical in 'gender critical' is being used.

It makes sense to us as an explanation because we're trying to understand how anyone could possibly misunderstand what we say to the point they think we say the complete opposite, but I guarantee you the people who are pushing the lies are not acting in good faith and absolutely haven't thought that deeply about the words being used in our arguments.

I can't emphasize enough how much Queer theory types especially, eschew logic and consistent argument. So while yes, this sounds like a reasonable explanation as to how the fuck they are misunderstanding us, it's only reasonable because we're the ones who have suggested it.

Agreed - it's always best to never, ever expect logic or good faith in these conversations or arguments or "debates", because neither exists.

The only criterion is: does it create more division and confusion? If yes, then say it.

I suppose its because I read stuff posted here and on other platforms by TRA's and think, how? How on earth can you possibly believe that! Stuff that you think must be some sort of bizarre joke but seems to be a strongly held belief.

When they describe what 'GC feminism' is (in their opinion) it's so clearly wrong that rational people would assume there's probably been some mistake or misunderstanding.

But to be fair, you're probably right - it's a tactic to cause division and confusion.

I mean, tbh, keep looking and asking that question. No one changes their mind if they are never told they believe lies and someone shares truth with them. But you'll save yourself an awful lot of frustration if you just keep in the back of your mind that logic and reason are often viewed with suspicion by people who swallow TRA bullshit.

Reason is a good thing to cling to.