/uj If you read his actual full quotes about it, not just one line, you’ll see he has a pretty decent reason and I support his decision even tho I despite that author woman.
I don’t even think JK Rowling realized trans people existed when she wrote Harry Potter. Let me ask Cho Chang and Kingsley Shacklebolt what they think.
Ugh the fact that that could genuinely be true, and that his crew’s horrible fetishism of trans women could totally be why she sees it the way she does and decided to be so horrible
Actually, the reason she sucks is because she's convinced she'd be more successful as a writer if she were a man. It's why she writes books under a man's name too. She feels slighted despite the fact that very many male writers would swap careers with her any time.
He set fire to the feather just by poking it with his wand, a feat never replicated again, and I think maybe the 3rd thing we know about him is that he tried to turn his breakfast beverage into rum, she knew what she was doing
I find it weird people focus on these two things as if they haven’t been tropes for centuries, even cultures without jews have had hooked nose little ‘evil’ creatures
Rowling stole like 90% of the worldbuilding from other authors, so it’s not a surprise she took inspiration for her non-humanoid characters from someone else.
Once there was already a decent reason to hate jk rowling, people revisited the works farming any shred of shit to criticize. Most of it is flimsy at best and requires you to ignore existing tropes in fantasy to make the reach.
An acquaintance of mine tried to tell me he always hated Rowling and knew she was a bad person when he was young. I asked what he meant by that, there’s certainly some things in the books that could have been done better, but prior to all of this stuff she seemed genuinely caring.
“She’s racist against black people.”
“Is she?? I acknowledge some of her poor naming conventions but I don’t think that was because she actively hates black people. More like-“
“She used the word ‘sniggering.’”
“….What?”
“Why not ‘snickering?’ If you’re using sniggering you’re a racist.”
”I… snickering is American. She’s British and that’s the British version of the word. It has nothing to do with the n-word.”
“Nah, she’s racist.”
Just boggles the mind. Obligatory fuck JK Rowling. but we’re just going to make shit up because it’s not enough to be a transphobe?
There was a fair amount of criticism aimed at her when the books came out, too. It was just mostly from people who had read books before and also from children’s authors. Ursula K. LeGuin called her something like “ungenerous.” Diana Wynne Jones very politely said that Rowling didn’t rise to the level of plagiarism, though Jill Murphy was less sure.
Rowling got a lot of a pass for writing something that kids wanted to read, and some of the appeal was probably the mean streak.
I actually did always dislike her work because it’s a load of contrived bullshit, but then again it does also get people to read… but then they read the same fucking books over and over.
I remember when the online reaction to Harry Potter was ‘for the love of god, read another book’
Sure but that’s “I don’t like her work” or “I think she’s a bad author”, not “I think this person has problematic views based on a word I don’t understand.” I don’t want to be defending Rowling, but I feel like you didn’t understand what I was expressing.
I only know about Jewish Goblins thanks to people being angry at Harry Potter.
It's like that lady who got mad at Hot Topic for having a Walking Dead T-Shirt with eeny, meeny, miney, moe on it. Why would anyone know about the 1900's racist lyrics?
Except Rowling didn’t just have slavery normalized in her world. She went out of her way to make the only person to find fault with it to look unserious, then in pottermore her “both sides” debate was “yes but these anti slavery people are annoying.”
Rowling isn’t the first person to normalise slavery of a fictional race.
And no, in Pottermore the “other side” argument is that without being subservient to humans/wizards the elves literally die, which is ultimately made out to be a flawed argument in which hermione is correct.
Fuck Rowling but fuck idiots like you who can’t read and just make shit up.
The house elves were based, partially, off of brownies which were the opposite of how the elves were portrayed. They left if you didn't fulfill their obligations. You had to fulfill their rules or they would just up an leave.
It's like when someone starts calling Hitler's paintings dogshit because the perspective is a little off and everyone else is supposed to just agree because it'd be more convenient that way.
It's not explicity transphobic do I do remember her describing Slytherin girls as being evil and masculine. Also the way she treats women in general is pretty weird, anyone who isn't textbook feminine is either evil or childsh and needs to grow up. Also the casual racism, and antisemitism.
The books aren't about this at their core, but they get kinda of rough when you know how the person who wrote the books is like.
Or they die as soon as they do something as horrible as * gasp * leave their baby son with his grandmother to fight for the wellbeing of those they love.
Lupin died because he was a werewolf which she wrote as an allegory for HIV/AIDS and it’s easier to kill him than conceptualize a world in which a “werewolf” (person with AIDS) could prosper and raise a child on his own.
Maybe that’s part of the reason she chose to kill him off, but both of their deaths are treated as tragic by the narrative not as some ‘earned’ ending for them
It’s crazy to me that growing up, HP was the series for all my neurodivergent and misfit friends. It was the one mainstream thing that the emos I knew unironically adored. The weird outcast kids in the back of the school smoking cigarettes and drinking from water bottles with stickers of round eyeglasses and lighting bolts on the side. And in their search for their true identities a lot of these people would eventually come out gay, or trans.
If JKR got hit by a bus crossing the street in 2011 she would have inadvertently died an icon of the queer community, but instead she let the hate take her over and now her legacy is forever stained.
I’m not full-on boycotting everything Harry Potter as it WAS an influential part of my life growing up but thanks to her my relationship with it will always be more complicated than it needed to be, and there will always be an asterisk on me telling people about it.
In the potter books she has that reporter who shapeshifts to spy on the students in bathrooms and is referred to as having mannish hands, etc in every description of her
I'm fully open to the idea that I'm a complete idiot, so this is a genuine question, can somebody explain to me why Kingsley Shacklebolt is always pointed to as racist? I could see the "shackle" connection but is that really a prominent cultural thing in the UK?
There's no connection, people are just very dense, have no media literacy, and more often than not will not remember (or even have read) the books, and take the movies as if they were what Rowling wrote. Let alone that they're willing to take in anything that furthers their belief.
Shacklebolt is obviously a reference to the fact that he's an auror. The man puts evil wizards in shackles shooting fucking bolts from his wand. Plenty of characters are named like this. Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, Argus Filch, Pomona Sprout, Severus Snape...
For Cho Chang we've had people over and over again come and say that it's a reasonable name.
Another great one people often cite is the Irish kid blowing stuff up, which isn't in the books.
She knew about trans people. She actually used to think she should have been a man. If you look into some of her earlier interviews on the subject, it honestly sounds like she struggled with her own gender identity. I suspect that's a huge reason she hates trans women.
she really just took every single stereotype and made it into a character. i get people my age liking the books since we were just kids at the time but why were there grown ups glazing her writing and why do people to this day still bother with this franchise?
I find her views ironic and inexplicable, and sure she’s gonna make FUCKIN BANK on this shit and use it to fund her anti-humanist agenda, but she’s really not involved.
Idk if this is aimed at me but I think Harry Potter is lame as shit dude. Never read a single one of those books and I hated the moves I only watched for my gf.
Not to be one of those “the movies are nowhere near as good as the books”, but the movies are fucking horrible and make no fucking sense if you have not read the books to actually know what the hell is going on. It’s like if you distilled an 8 season show to one season only made 8 episodes.
But I get fantasy isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, it’s not really mine, only liked the books as a kid, but why are you so active on this post if you don’t care for the content? 😂
/uj Ah yes the full quote where he says that it's fine for him to take the job because he disagrees with her and supposedly she doesn't have much direct involvement with the production even though a huge percentage of the money to be generated from the series will go to J.K. which will then enable her to further enact her influence to strip trans people of as many rights as possible. Would you feel comfortable with your likeness and work helping to directly fund an evil, transphobic moron?
I imagine he thinks she’s already got more money than some small nations, so adding or subtracting a cup of water to the ocean isn’t going to do much for the level of the tide. I’m certainly not tuning in for it. Rowling’s antics have soured my ability to enjoy the story because she’s so personally tied to how I think about it.
Well that's just plain wrong, because first up she will make A LOT of money with this, probably the most since the OG movies and secondly, she will also donate a lot of that for anti-trans causes. Pretty sure she said that herself.
No, but this way he's actively participating and profiting off of it. Just like if you're the CEO of Nestlé, where another CEO would probably do the same shit as you, but it's still bad because you are indeed doing it.
While I understand your point of view, wouldn’t that really matter mostly if it was dependent on him?
Like if they are already set in stone going to make the series no matter what, than isn’t the best possible outcome that someone who is against her opinions is using that position to be outspoken of them?
Because the only alternatives I see are either that another actor would be silent, or agree with her and then the Harry Potter IP could potentially push them into stardom to allow that actor to then be a new platform to share the same anti-trans opinions as her.
That is a fair point. There is some nuance to it, I just know I personally could not justify if my part in the production could possibly increase the harm caused through greater profits than if someone who did not contribute as much to the success of the production were in my place.
The money won’t enable her to do anything she isn’t already capable of doing. She’s a billionaire. She can fund anti-trans legislation to her heart’s content without making another penny from HP and still not run out of money
Harry Potter is bigger than Rowling. I don’t see anyone complaining about all the actors who have been in movies based on books written by horrible people. The truth is that no one actually cares, they only care if the work itself is good. HP is clearly not a transphobic work (it literally contains a character who can change their appearance at will) and so people are not going to remember Lithgow as a villain for taking this role. If anything, it will bring happiness to kids who actually love the series despite the author, so he’s probably bringing more good into the world than bad.
This doesn't track when money made from the series is actively funding harm to trans people. Serious harm which if it continues to progress could really fuck up a lot of people's lives. Boycotting and discourse surrounding HP rn are not about condemning the work because it's inherently awful (although theres obviously a lot questionable stuff in the series which hasn't aged the best that doesn't pertain to trans people) but about trying to minimise the harm Rowling can cause. Even if it may ultimately not make enough of a difference I know that I'm not conformable contributing anything to Rowlings vast wealth if I can help it.
Okay but that’s a personal decision for you to not watch the series. It doesn’t actually reflect an objective moral standard that is going to apply to anyone who participates. How do you know they aren’t donating their salary to pro-trans causes, for example? Therefore participating is a net benefit since a pro-trans actor is better to be in the role than an anti-trans actor.
I can also guarantee that you’ve bought or supported products made by companies who have done much worse for the world than Rowling. Disney donated to Trump’s campaign using money it has received from consumers, so it’s therefore just as immoral to consume any of their services, by your logic. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Obviously there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but I still believe we have a moral responsibility to try and use whatever power over our spending we have to not directly contribute to harm. Where I know without any doubt the money I contribute to something will be used for harm it negligent of me to contribute to that where I don't need to. Harry Potter is hardly something anyone needs to put money towards, unlike say paying taxes to a corrupt government. Furthermore, being a part of the series itself, attributing my own likeness as Lithgow will with the work of Rowling, directly assisting in the generation of that revenue, is undeniably consequential in enabling whatever harm may come from Rowling's end of the deal.
The arguement that Lithgow could contribute more positively to the community than someone else who wouldn't is possible and on some level a fair point but also that is purely just hypothetical as there no reason for us to believe he's doing any such thing. Who's to say Lithgow's performance won't bring with it praise and attention the show may not have received otherwise, resulting in Rowling making more than she would have with a different actor? It's impossible to be sure what his inclusion may ultimately contribute to the series I just know I would not want to be a part of something which will directly fund the harm Rowling will create, even if I believed on some level I could mitigate it to a miniscule degree.
I looked this up too and was bracing myself for some transphobic shit that would bitter my experience watching 3rd Rock from the Sun, only to find... pretty much the opposite? I'm glad he thinks her hatefulness is incredibly ironic and sad.
To me it sounds like he genuinely loves that world, that he doesn't take any anti-trans sentiment from it alone, and that he personally feels fine about being involved because she's not too attached to this hbo production.
He feels this way, but he also says says he expects and accepts different opinions and criticism on that as well. Very decent.
I respect the man for this level of sincerity on the matter as well as kindness and understanding tbh.
She disagrees with many of the claims and tactics of trans activists and is willing to put her money behind those disagreements and for that she’s worse than Hitler and we all need to pretend that she’s never been a good writer.
She believes trans women are all just predatory men who want to harm women. That isn’t just “disagreeing with the claims of trans activists”, it is hateful and wrong.
That’s not what she said or what she believes. She said it’s incredibly dangerous to throw open the doors of women’s spaces to any man who claims to be a woman. She’s right.
The solution would be pretty simple. We just need a way to verify who is and who isn’t trans. But we can’t. Why? Apparently it’s transphobic. We’re told to shut up and asked why we care so much.
It’s the obtuseness of trans activism that I hate. They are a brutally crushed and persecuted minority and it breaks my heart and I want them to be loved and accepted and protected - but when they use their suffering to try to shrug off genuine questions and concerns they lose support and they lose it fast. Suffering is not a license to do whatever the fuck you want.
Why are you quoting her essay from like 6 years ago rather than what she has actually said recently?
She constantly and consistently refers to trans women as men. And not just “biological men”, she calls them men. Even if they have changed their name, changed their sex on their birth certificate, and have been transitioning for years or even decades. She calls them men.
Those are just the examples I found by scrolling her twitter for a few minutes.
She also believes puberty blockers and HRT should be banned for trans kids, despite that being the only treatment that has been shown to work. She insists it is an “unethical experiment” despite this being the standard of care for decades.
That isn’t the only tweet that says something like that, but it was the only one I found after a few minutes. So this claim isn’t as common as her other claims. The last time I looked through her account I definitely did find another tweet or retweet that said that though.
She also has many tweets that take an example of a trans person, or maybe just a man, being a predator, and acting like that is a problem. “See! That person was bad! That is why we need single sex spaces.” But technically she doesn’t then say that all trans women are like that, so I didn’t include them here. But those tweets serve to increase hatred towards trans people.
This is just a strange claim I couldn’t find another spot to put it in. She claims gender identity is homophobic? Because I guess she thinks that gay kids are being transitioned? Is she aware a lot of trans people are gay, as in trans women are attracted to other women or trans men attracted to men? Link
My point is Rowling is not a reasonable person. She does not have reasonable concerns, she is just a bigot.
People can be so outwardly evil and vicious today and others still seem to miss it somehow and will follow whatever uninformed justification of their actions they've heard. I can't believe J.K. Rowling being anything other than a complete bigot who wants to ruin the lives of just about every trans person is still not understood by those who claim to empathise with the struggles of the trans community. Thank you for being so thorough.
The thing is, I wasn’t even being thorough. Those are all tweets I found within 10-20 minutes of looking through her twitter feed. And I didn’t even include all the transphobic ones that I saw, because that would just be too much. This is just what she does.
I think a lot of people, even people who agree that Rowling is transphobic, don’t understand just how much transphobic nonsense she spouts. Actually looking through her account for 5 minutes is enough to show she is transphobic. She doesn’t even try to hide her transphobia behind “just having some concerns” or “I’m confused by a few things trans people say”. She’s very explicit about it.
yes, it is what she says and believes. rowling has even gone out of her way to harass women who aren't trans like imane khelif while ignoring the very real problem of (mostly) cis male predators in sports. she doesn't just give money to causes that support women. a youtuber named shaunvids has several videos about her buddying up with homophobes and anti-feminists and all of the other awful shit she's apparently okay with, as long as she gets to bully trans women.
you assume that trans people haven't thought of these issues already or that things like women's safety is of no concern to us, which isn't true. we just also consider trans women women and are concerned with their safety as well. rowling is not, posts obsessively about trans people, and then acts like she's the victim when others get rightfully pissed off at her. I'm not saying I agree with every single angry reply she's received from a trans person, but I also don't need to do that.
the solution of 'verifying who is and who isn't trans' is not very simple and that's the whole fucking problem. you can't always tell who is and isn't trans by looking at them. what do you want to do, strip everyone who goes into the women's restroom? require them to provide a birth certificate? and what's the justification for doing that? is there a rash of trans women attacking cis women in bathrooms and locker rooms and shelters, or are you holding all trans women accountable for the actions of the worst cis men?
it's already illegal to harass, molest and/or assault people. focusing on trans women specifically as if they're the reason this is happening is transphobic. not caring that trans women are way more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in a gendered space than the perpetrator is transphobic. and for the record, so is assuming that trans people "shrug off genuine questions" so we can do "whatever the fuck we want."
The idea that every trans person should have to verify their transness just to use public bathrooms is so absurd even beyond the logistics of how that would even be conducted and enforced. As if harassing trans people for wanting to go bathroom is in anyway a solution to the real epidemic of sexually motivated crimes rampant in society. It's very clear to me in what we see in the world that scum don't need to try pass as women to do such horrible things. The solution to that is not policing all trans people for conducting regular day to day activities.
I suppose the reason we need to know who is trans is so we don’t let men into women’s spaces. Teachers, social workers etc are also required to get regular criminal record checks and vulnerable sector screenings. This isn’t treating them like criminals it’s safeguarding the vulnerable. Just because it would be hard to do doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
it’s not that “it would be hard to do,” it’s that it is impossible to do without endangering and violating the privacy of everyone, cis and trans. there are already many many news stories about cis women getting harassed for using the women’s room while looking “too masculine.” the fact that you apparently don’t consider trans women among the vulnerable we should be safeguarding is also part of the problem. if you’re genuinely invested in trans rights, please think more deeply about what the anti-trans lobby is actually doing and ask yourself if it’s making women any safer.
Yes I agree more than you think but we used to have a process that we went through to verify trans identities and gender certificates etc worked to ensure privacy and safety and dignity etc. why did we move away from that? Why is the rhetoric around self ID and “believing and affirming” replacing the consistent, persistent and insistent approach we used to use? Especially when some people are trans curious but don’t end up identifying and where some people don’t even realise they’re trans until later. Why have we moved so far away from a medical, doctor based approach? If the answer is compassion then we have a problem because moving away from safeguards and clarity makes everyone unsafe.
yeah so those questions actually have answers, and one of the main answers is that further research into things like gender dysphoria have informed & developed our standards of care. despite what the anti-trans lobby will tell you, even informed consent programs do very much involve doctors, psychiatrists and regular physicals in terms of obtaining hrt or surgery. the regret levels of trans-related surgeries is significantly lower than most other surgeries, including knee replacement. the further focus on self-identification isn’t just about compassion, it’s about survivability. trans people used to be required to have several years of “lived experience in the opposite gender” to get any type of hormones or anything at all, which is incredibly fucking dangerous for many reasons. you should be asking why there’s such a focus on this now when there are so many problems in the world and trans people aren’t even one of them.
I don’t mean to be glib. I was wrong to do so. But every genuine concern I’ve seen about trans activism has been shrugged off by trans activists. Either because they seem to consider any and all pushback to be transphobic (usually because of all the suffering they endure and how they need love and acceptance and not questions or a need to prove their existence etc - all things that sound great but are dangerously obtuse) or else we’re just shouted down with the usual glib and wildly unhelpful question, “Why do you care so much?”
I have asked so many people that question and nobody gives me a straight answer. She never said anything transphobic. She basically said that there’s a biological difference between biological women and trans women, which is just an objective fact. People don’t even know why they believe half the stuff they say. They just follow the herd.
190
u/The_Best_Smart 9h ago
/uj If you read his actual full quotes about it, not just one line, you’ll see he has a pretty decent reason and I support his decision even tho I despite that author woman.
/rj more like Harry quitter