Do it to HER
Judy Blume clarified or explained or reworded or something yesterday.
It doesn’t really clarify though. More like that other thing. What does “support the trans community” mean? What does “stand with the trans community” mean? Why does she feel nervously compelled to say she does both in one short statement? Why does she mention a “trans community” at all? Why does she say “the trans community” instead of “trans people”? Was she told to word it that way?
As for “LGBTQIA+ people” (I guess it’s ok to call them people but not trans the community?) – what does the Q mean? Why is the A there? Was she handed a script and told to tweet it or else?
I don’t know. At any rate it’s clearly a very public backstab of JK Rowling.
H/t Rev David Brindley
Five years ago I noted that SF writer Jo Walton had pulled from publication an upcoming novel Poor Relations because of criticism of advance copies of it by transgender readers. I don’t think Walton pulled it because of criticism of the actual novel, but because she knew even the accusation of transphobia would affect her financially. I think Blume’s backtracking regarding JK Rowling is also motivated by financial matters, in particular the recent release of a movie based on one of her more famous books. I’m sure Blume got a call from the producers of the movie immediately after Hadley Freeman’s interview of Blume was published.
That Rowling recently signed a deal with HBO to make a ten year TV remake of Harry Potter in this light does show though that all the accusations of her being a transphobic witch aren’t shutting her up, which I hope other authors, particularly women, can be encouraged by. It’s bad enough that publishing has bought into gender identity, it’s even worse if authors feel they have to self-censor themselves.
Blume recently said this in an article about book banning in The Guardian:
So maybe Blume is actually on board with gender identity and is sincere regarding her support of the trans community. Whether she then thinks Rowling is a witch is another matter.
Link: Judy Blume: book banning now much worse in US than in 1980s
J.A.: Judy Blume is coming at this from the perspective of someone whose books have been pulled from school libraries for 50 years because they discussed things like racism, menstruation, and masturbation in a sensible and matter-of-fact way. Forever is a book where two teenagers have sex and nothing terrible happens, which was absolutely groundbreaking at that time. Remember that a lot of the books conservatives want out of libraries are “CRT” texts like Maus and The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and perfectly unobjectionable volumes which happen to have gay characters that don’t die horribly of AIDS.
It’s also worth noticing that Judy Blume did not repeat the catechism of TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN, TRANS MEN ARE MEN, NON-BINARY PEOPLE ARE VALID. That’s a notable omission.
I was thinking about this last night, and I remembered “I support our troops”. Remember that? It’s like that. It’s a thought-terminating cliche.
Who doesn’t “support” our troops? I mean, I don’t want them to get hurt. I wish them luck in not getting hurt. I don’t want any alphabet people to get hurt, either. So?
What were we talking about, again? Oh, yeah. Whether a given war is justified. What is “gender identity” and should it trump sex and are trans women women. Questioning what we’re told about these things, it’s implied, means we don’t “support” people in some unspecified way.
This reads as though it was drafted by someone in the publicity department at her publisher. Or possibly by Judy Blume’s agent. With her consent, of course.
Yes, Judy, parents want to protect their children from knowing things. They’re absolutely terrified that their children might come home from school knowing things they didn’t just that morning. That’s why parents ask, “What did you learn at school today?” They want to make sure that the answer is always literally, “Nothing.” And heaven forfend that the children actually talk to people about things. Parents definitely want to protect their children from ever talking about things, which is why they talk to their children about things. … Waitaminnit…
It’s the supercilious sneer that really drives needles under my nails. It’s one thing to mock an argument that someone is actually making. It’s quite another to lie about what someone says and then mock them for that, all with an air of moral and intellectual superiority. It’s the DARVO update of the motte & bailey. Where a normal motte & bailey accuses its opponents of attacking a position no one holds, this one accuses its opponents of attacking a position everyone holds; i.e., the motte. “You don’t want kids to learn about things.” At least with the standard form, the attacker’s position isn’t misrepresented, only the defender’s.
It’s worth noting that the, “You just don’t want [reasonable thing],” move isn’t limited to Genderists, no matter how much they love it. It’s an unfortunately common gambit. “You just don’t want kids to learn about history,” for race issues and, “You just don’t want people to be able to defend themselves,” for gun control are examples that spring to mind. The point is always to deflect attention from yourself and force the other person to defend him- or herself. Ultimately, it’s rhetorically little different from, “You just want to sin.”
And, of course, the gender ideologists would be thrilled to prevent their children from knowing things – like biology.
While the right is busy removing books that have positive messages for gay kids, books that explore our racial and imperial history, and books that have smart women, the left is busy removing books that are insufficiently groveling to the trans.
I meant to include: So eventually our libraries will be just empty shelves with a poor lonely librarian sitting there wishing she had something to do (I hope I didn’t just misgender the poor lonely librarian; I am aware there are male librarians, I’m married to one).