National Trust and JKR

[SlackJawedDisbeliefXY]

National Trust angers its members by covering up feminist artwork after JK Rowling's name was removed | Daily Mail Online

So the feminist statement of stitching a strikethrough of JKR's name is OK to display but another feminist un-stitching the strikethrough is unacceptable for display?

Not all feminist statements are equal

My dads 79 and he knows what a transperson is

its so rude! I hear ‘old people don’t understand’ all the time…they obviously understand its not fucking rocket science

So do we have a disconnect here.

Apparently people with transgender identities have been around forever, yet ‘old’ people don’t know anything about them?

Brilliant i missed she was on R4!

YABU to think you are the one going insane in this situation.

Lol.

I am not an old person so far be it from me to speak for them, but I imagine they are well aware that some men prefer to dress like women and are only confused about why people are pretending they actually are women.

We all need to do this! It’s a numbers game don’t forget - who TF do they think their customer base is? Screaming men in dresses and pink haired snowflakes? Or been around the block couples and families who like gardens, history, and not being screwed over?

"Can't imagine they'd even understand what trans people are". "Sweet old grandmothers"

People never update their internal images of old people. People who are reaching retirement age now grew up in the 60s. My oldest brother, now 68, had long hair, listened to Fleetwood Mac, lived in Christiania for a bit and is currently hiking the entire camino portuguese. My other brother, four years younger, was the guitarist in an (utterly dreadful) punk band. Sweet old grandads, yeah right.

I think the NT have underestimated how pissed off women are about this. Women have been abused, harassed and silenced by trans activists. Somebody stitching through JKR's name, and then the NT washing their hands of it and saying "nothing to see here" is a perfect illustration of this.

I won't be renewing my national trust membership next month.

“When I think of the volunteers we had I can't imagine they'd even understand what trans people are never mind what this argument is really about. They were mainly sweet old grandmothers.”

I suspect those ‘sweet old grandmothers’ know exactly what’s up, but like the wise old birds they are they just present themselves in a way that makes them invisible to dumb ageist and sexist people who can’t see further than the end of their noses. 🙄

Make sure you tell them why.

It's not the sweet old grandmother volunteers who've lived for 70+ years and somehow never heard of transgenderism because everyone knows your brain falls out on your 65th birthday or something. It's the official NT organisation that considered its response to someone carefully undeleting a woman's name (and if you think it was stitched on purely so the original stitcher could strike it out in the trans flag colours, or that it was a subversive point about anti-censorship, hey, I've still got that bridge for sale) and decided not to leave it be, or even just put it behind a glass screen for protection, but to cover up the whole thing and make some hypocritical point about respect. Perhaps they're too sweet, old and grandmotherly to know they meant #bekind.

People can communicate how they feel about this to those in charge who made that decision, and frankly pulling memberships is the most powerful way to do it. You can place and withhold your money as you like.

That's quite the appalling and patronising ageism you've got going on there.

When women become grandmothers, do they lose their faculties and ability to understand the world?

I think one reason to dismiss older women is that they tend to remember that transsexuals and cross-dressers (together with other niche interests} were separate groups who would not necessarily be given the same amount of sympathy. That perhaps the LGBTQ+ group ought not to be treated as a monolith.

My mother is in her 70s. She volunteers for all kinds of shit. She knows what transgender means because her son is a middle aged transwoman.

Weirdly, given that the demographics for transwomen tend to be late transitioning (as in after age 30), I do wonder what rock the previous poster lives under.

The sweet old grandmother's at the NT are the mothers of this cohort. Not grandmothers. Funny how this is conveniently forgotten and framed as a 'trendy young person thing' rather than something grown men, often with wives and kids do.

Of course middle aged married transitioners with children need the youth to help them with the PR job and the most marginalised in society narrative.

The idea that these women don't talk about what's going on in their lives or the lives of their peers and their adult children, is really one that I find hard to believe.

From the other thread. The NT knew, had a fretful meeting about it and allowed it to stand. Cowards.

https://x.com/LottieHistory/status/1899565067693175082

If an old grandmother comes across as 'sweet' it's probable that she has learned the hard way not to speak her mind to people she doesn't trust.

An update from the NT https://x.com/nationaltrust/status/1930292615389266315

Twats.

I bet the names of pretend feminists who prioritise penis people weren't stitched over.

So the statement does clear up if the name and stitching were from a single participant

... and in two instances it was stitched over by other participants ...

In two cases the contributions of participants to a collaborative artwork were defaced (and arguably had their meaning reversed) by other contributors.

I'm not sure from the statement, are the NT confirming that they had seen this defacement and still decided that they would put the artwork on display?

Is it that the NT saw that the defacement had occurred but decided that the message delivered by the damage was more important than that of the original author?

Jean Hatchet's narrative of what happened puts the blame for stitching over JKR's name at the feet of two trans identifying NT members of staff.

If this is the case then why are they simply referred to as 'participants' in the NT statement. Surely this piece of information is very relevant to the story

Perhaps the original author was a 12 year old girl, carefully stitching the name of her favorite author. Maybe the NT decided that she needed to be taught the life lesson that her voice is less important that that of an adult male who wants the rest of the world to affirm him in his fantasy that he has become a woman?

This is a new article in the Times:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1a301704-b0db-42e1-b150-cb0427965d0d?shareToken=bbadbc218b14472c2b572c1593c2ac7a

I found this interesting and strong warning about using 'AI copilots' et al. as the basis for any rigorous analysis.

Whilst searching for any other viewpoints for the JKR / NT story I was presented with a helpful AI based summary to save me the time of looking at the original sources.

Note that it gets the details of the story wrong implying that the artwork was taken down in response to the stitching over of JKR's name in trans flag colors (sic).

This is not what happened - the artwork was taken down because someone carefully unpicked the over stitching.

Also note that the AI describes the controversy arising because of JK Rowling's ... public stance against transgender rights ...

This is, again, incorrect. JK Rowling's public stance is for women's rights

Beware of AI summaries - they are often both authoritative and wrong

Image for post above

I’m a life member (via an inheritance from my in-laws) and I am pretty fucking unimpressed with the NT