Judy Blume & Dylan Mulvaney

[BabyofMine]

I think I just had some sort of revelation.
I’m actually furious. Maybe I’m overreacting but Judy Blume wrote a book called Are you There God? It’s me, Margaret in the 70s. My myself, and I bet many others of my era, it was the first time I ever read a book that depicted a girl going through puberty like me. It made me less afraid of periods, and growing breasts which I did precociously. It meant so much to me.

So there is a film adaptation coming out and I was ecstatic when I saw the news.

Just seen the first piece of promo apart from the trailer that I have come across - TikTok suggested it to me - and it’s a cosy little chat between Judy Blume the author and Dylan Mulvaney. Talking about what it’s like to be a girl, grow breasts and such…
Really, Judy fucking Blume? Why of all people would you choose to promote the movie, which I would presume would have a target audience of preteen and teen girls, with a person that will never go through female puberty, will never bleed between their legs like a girl, never has to worry about buying sanitary products, or a million other things girls worry about.

I’m sure they have their own many and varied things to worry about, and lots of experiences that might be great to share with their audience, but really?

I just feel like I’ve been pissed on from a great height. I may well be overreacting - forgive me, I’m due on.

Part of the schtick is that it's all Dylan's work, making low-budget Tiktoks etc, but that in itself is a misrepresentation. Nobody managed by 7 people is 'low budget'.

That's interesting. Although I knew he was making an absolute fortune. This makes sense why / how.

his puts her in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the likes DM. Had she refused the interview, there would have been plenty of people who would have been very happy to crow that she may claim to be against booksbeing banned and excluded because people disagree with what they are about but she is quite happy to ban and excludepeople because she disagrees with what they are about.

But it does make perfect sense to exclude people when the subject matter is something that has no relevance to their lives, experience or expertise.

We've been watching and greatly enjoying all the Eurovision build-up with Rylan, but we still wouldn't expect to see him interviewed about what it's like to be Prime Minister, with him revealing what life in Number 10 is really like.

I wouldn't expect to see Princess Kate recounting her tough life as a French peasant during the Renaissance.

I think this is a big part of the problem with many of the TRAs - where they want to be centred in absolutely everything, whether it's relevant to them and their lives or not; and of course, that means that if they are centred in something that absolutely does not concern or apply to them, that then means that somebody else to whom it does apply and means a great deal will be excluded - but it seems that it's absolutely fine to exclude, ignore and throw under the bus anybody who isn't trans.

It's back to the whole 'if you don't agree with my demands to take rights away from other people and add them on to the same ones that I already have, then you're a hater'. This crass unfairness and utter madness has to stop.

Yes. It’s clear that many people are making a great deal of money off the back of transgender ideology - not just this individual.

Not sure if any remarks that are not fawning and sycophantic would be allowed on her online guest book, but here's a link for anyone who wants to try letting her know what they think about this debacle
https://judyblume.com/about-judy-blume/contact/

This puts her in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the likes DM. Had she refused the interview, there would have been plenty of people who would have been very happy to crow that she may claim to be against books being banned and excluded because people disagree with what they are about but she is quite happy to ban and exclude people because she disagrees with what they are about.

Sorry, this is nonsense. Being against book banning and censorship doesn’t mean you are obliged to directly talk to every Tom, Dick or Harry on the planet. You just have to agree that Tom, Dick and Harry have a right to say what they want, not that anyone has to listen.

Ok, I'm going to stick up for Judy here a bit. I took her reply to that question to mean 'love who you are', and she very quickly used the phrase "no matter what sex you are". When she spoke about growing up as well, she seemed to make it about emotional growth and said that looking back she still feels like she has 'grown up' from being a 50 year old which I felt moved it away from female puberty as a biological process that Dylan will ever experience.

I think it could have been much worse.

Bud Light isn’t just about men, it’s a beer that specifically positioned itself as a working class, American, (I don’t like this term but for lack of a better one) “redneck” beer. The backlash was men, but it was particularly because at the same time that video emerged of the marketing exec talking about how Bud Light was dying as a brand and irrelevant and they needed to market to a different, better, younger, cooler audience. That’s what really set it off - a core group of consumers feeling like the brand had contempt for them. So it became a significant cultural issue in that sense - it represented the elite classes in marketing suites in NY/LA hating the regular people they market to and trying to force them to change while sneering at them. And that in turn represented a broader political and cultural battle.

But in terms of why men can boycott successfully and women can’t, that’s also sexism. Because with men it can be a real political issue representing the class division in America, but with women it’s like “silly women getting mad about their dumb makeup and clothes.” So when women were mad about Ulta, it’s not taken seriously because there’s already a stigma that makeup is stupid and frivolous anyway. The symbols of manhood get to be real, significant and meaningful and the things women like are always silly, trivial and meaningless and about vanity. Bud can symbolize American values and sports and manhood and working class jobs so a boycott really matters but makeup and bras just shows how shallow women are.

I think she's belongs to the group of women who thought they could be kind and inclusive whilst still retaining some shred of commonsense. I think there's a fair nunber of us on here who were in that category at one point! And she's on a very steep learning curve)

You have it spot-on MightyEagle

I am unhappy that JB did this. But I see an 85 yo woman in a situation with which she struggles & is unsure of. I reckon she believes she's 'doing the right thing' even tho her discomfort at Dylan's inane & grotesque posturing is evident.

Also, for those saying 'she can't be cancelled'. Perhaps not, technically / financially. But she sure as hell can get targeted, abused & demeaned & understandably that's a place most people don't actively want to be.

I’m sure JB doesn’t realize that Dylan already threatened to ruin the lives of women who don’t think he should be fetishizing tampons and harassing women in bathrooms and also doesn’t know Dylan has a history of being obsessed with hoarding tampons and that it only took Dylan 8 days into “girlhood” to go full Yaniv. She doesn’t know exactly how creepy and gross this interview is - the reason it’s so outrageous and disgusting isn’t because Dylan is Trans, it’s because Dylan has a pattern of being obsessed with women’s periods and with menstrual products. She probably just thinks “oh, it’s nice my book is speaking to a new audience.” I’m repulsed because I know Dylan talks about Barbie pouches and thinks tampons sizes are about the size of your vagina, but I’m sure she has no idea who Dylan is.

Book banning is a voter issue in the US. The people who want books to be banned because they mention periods are not remotely interested in people engaging in this kind of critical thinking. They are interested in being able to flood Twitter with the 'evidence' that people who oppose book banning are hypocrits who would happily exclude things they don't agree with but won't let others do the same. There are enough people who will accept that entirely at face value.

So Judy Blume’s defence of that potential criticism would have just been to point out it’s not hypocritical because it’s not the same.

I find the suggestion that if Blume had refused to speak to DM it would have led TRAs to criticise her of hypocrisy over free speech a) a massive leap and b) an argument that can easily be dismissed even if they did.

TRAs don’t want to bring attention to the issue of free speech and book banning because they don’t advocate for free speech and they do advocate for book banning (eg Chase Strangio/Abigail Shrier). So I don’t believe for one second this is a relevant component of why Blume chose to speak to DM in this manner.

Probably the studio is worried a book from the 70s won’t speak to girls today and some genius suggested Gen Z is “queer” and Dylan has a huge TikTok following and that will make the movie relevant. And periods are terfy so they’re trying to head off the “this movie is inherently transphobic” crowd. Actually, if someone really wanted to bring down Dylan they should start a thread about how Dylan is a sellout because AUTGIMM is “exclusionary” and “promotes cis girlhood at the expense of Trans kids and plays into the trans hate laws being passed” and that “it’s a right wing terf movie that reduces people to their biological functions” and how Dylan is a “privileged white TW who is the least impacted by Trans genocide and while this hate movie that promotes exclusionary white cis girlhood harms and kills BIPOC TW.”

That bit where Judy starts to talk about the ‘teenage softies’ and Dylan acts all knowledgeable as if they’re an expert on ‘pads’ because of course Dylan is (although I thought they were more of a tampon guy?) And the anecdote goes nowhere because Dylan wants to talk about something else (perhaps sensing it might not be a good look to get too embroiled in another conversation about periods especially as they can’t share in that experience because y’know)

So straight into something Dylan CAN share in which is ‘growing’ breasts. Their experience is just the same as a pubertal young girl and the huge range of emotions their developing bodies can bring about. Breast exercises! Ha! Not artificial hormone injections or surgeries Dylan - Judys not talking about that sort of growth.

And not even knowing the book was from the early 70s not the 80s - do your fucking research! And thinking Judy was done when she said she felt she was a grown up at 50. Listen Dylan. With Dylan it’s all about the ‘optics’. Look at us two ladies in our cute little jackets chatting girly stuff!

Aaaaaargggghhh! PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!

TRAs are not the centre of the world. Their outrage is largely irrelevant to the issue. The people who want to ban books, whose lists of books to be banned tend to heavily feature books about trans people, are predominantly the conservative, religious right who need to convince marginally less conservative people, largely parents, to vote with them to ban the books they want. One of the ways they can do this is by casting Judy Blume and others in a bad light by presenting them as hypocrits. If they happen to have aligned temporarily with trans activists because it allows them to use them to make a point, so be it. They will return to vociferously campaigning to ban books about them soon enough.

So the people who want to ban books need to convince marginally less conservative people, largely parents, to vote with them to ban the books they want and one of the ways they can do this is by casting Judy Blume and others in a bad light by presenting them as hypocrites.

Really?

In that case, it would be a Very Good Idea if people like Judy Blume, who don't want books banned, didn't fall into their trap. For instance, by not discussing a book and film about female puberty with a person who has never experienced it and who never will experience it but who claims to be a girl. Thus looking very obviously like a hypocrite.

To misquote the reviled Nike, Just Don't Do It.

Judy,Judy, Judy. 😟

I wish she'd told him to pull his head out of his arse and have a word with himself.

Just watched it. Hoping to see some indication on her part that she was doing this for sunlight on the insanity. It's the worst craven horror show of this stuff that you can imagine.
It's so fucking horrible I could almost cry

She lives in the US. Losing her ability to publish will probably cost her her health care. The transagenda and its power is totally wicked.

I am unhappy that JB did this. But I see an 85 yo woman in a situation with which she struggles & is unsure of
Infantilising and ageist, well done.
Seriously, some of the posts on here- heaven forbid a woman knows her own mind and has her own opinion 🙄
No, must because the men are making her do it, or the fact she's 85 must mean she's just confused.
Poor old dear

Eurgh. There's literally no female boundary that males won't try and cross is there?

I really didn't expect it with teenage puberty and periods though.

I loved 'Are you there God? It's me Margaret' I clearly remember reading it in year 5, it was one of my favourite books.

It feels weirdly tarnished now.

Interesting TRAs aren't sharing the video. Maybe they know it will peak anyone who sees it.

Let's assume she has private healthcare so livelihood isn't an issue. Guess she doesn't have the strength to resist.
Resistance is futile etc etc

She’s a massive disappointment. That interview will be part of her legacy and it won’t age well