IMAGE TEXT:

Thinking on it, ordinarily I would agree with the argument that someone's family would be pretty clued up on their views, and that physical evidence of their views prior to death is enough. However, there's a reason I don't in the case of Terry Pratchett and trans rights.

First it's important to talk timelines. Terry Pratchett was diagnosed with alzheimer's in 2007 and died in 2015. Trans rights activism in it's current form really started to emerge in about 2010? And really started to gain warp speed momentum around 2015.

So what was the understanding of a trans person back in 2010? Generally, a very small group of people considered to be genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria for whom medical transition was the best option. Not many people are going to object to that. Indeed, plenty of GC feminists probably agreed with it at the time.

Fast forward to 2021 and trans can mean practically anything and doesn't require any medical diagnosis or intervention. Sex is being unscientifically peddled as a spectrum, rather than a binary, and there is an encroachment on women's rights based on this. There is also an increase in homophobic and misogynistic rhetoric coming from TRA camps and children are being encouraged to take untested medication that is otherwise used for chemical castration and cancer, rather than go to therapy. To summarise: it is a completely different beast to that which Terry Pratchett ever would have encountered back in 2007 and, quite frankly, by the time he died in 2015, given his alzheimers I doubt he would have been focused on such movements.

Lmao nonny this made me cackle! It’s unusual for me disagree with my fellow meta writers, though on the rare occasions that I do, I try to hold my tongue because whilst sometimes we can engage in discussions with different viewpoints, I would struggle in this instance to find common ground. This is my own opinion of course and I don’t mean any disrespect. I just can’t see where this interpretation of canon is coming from. Each to our own though.

As I said I enjoyed SamWitch. I loved Sam and Rowena’s canon relationship. However people wanted to interpret it, I was generally pro their bond whatever canon chose to do with it. 

To be perfectly honest, I tend to purposely forget that Rowena was Crowley’s mum. I thought that whole storyline was stupid and at first was lukewarm to Rowena as a character because she was a Bucklemming creation who had a weird backstory I couldn’t quite get behind. It was only once other writers got hold of her and developed her into a well rounded interesting strong and awesome woman that I fell in love with her a little bit. (full disclosure I despise everything about Season 10 except for Demon Dean and Castiel’s human endgame foreshadowing - especially Sam’s hair).

I also wasn’t bothered by the fact that she’s several hundred years old. Castiel is at least several thousand years old (if not millions depending on where SPN canon actually puts the true Earth TL as it’s always been vague about biblical vs scientific true Earth age) and I ship him with Dean so I’d say their age gap is pretty extreme. Rowena as a witch regardless of age was still a cute match with Sam, I just never felt as strongly for them having a romantic bond as I did for Saileen. I loved Sam and Rowena’s friendship. I loved their mentor/mentee relationship. I loved how Sam became her protege. I loved how they bonded over Lucifer trauma. They had a mutual respect and understanding for one another. The one thing I never actually saw though was a mutual attraction. 

People commonly mix up Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass.

*younger than what? younger than he appears? younger than the approximate age of the actor they got to play him, I guess? Hiddles was almost 30 when he started playing Loki, far from a child, but some fanworks/theories are really keen on the idea of Loki being... well, a child.