Culture J.K Rowling Megathread

All Articles and Discussion Regarding The English Author J.K. Rowling belong here. If you're looking to discuss the Harry Potter series itself, this thread is for you. If you know about any potential cow material in the Harry Potter Fandom, go here. If you're here to bitch about transsexuals' in general, we already have threads for that here, here, and here.

Backstory of the Author



J.K. Rowling is one of the most well known authors in the world today. She was living as a single mother on welfare in England before her first published novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone skyrocketed her to international fame and acclaim. The following six novels, movie and various video game franchises, spin off books, and merchandise, made her the wealthiest author in history. As her books gained international attention many criticized and even protested her works. With feminists claiming her novels conform heavily with gender stereotypes about men and women, and are racist, religious organizations stating that the books contain actual dangerous spells children use to hurt each other, and even a literal book burning back on February 4th of this year because the books are 'demonic'.

These examples and many others over the past two decades exemplify just how divisive even the most innocuous things can be, and how people with irrational thinking, extreme political views and a platform to spread them can cause a worldwide discussion. This is just her first seven novels however. Many people have criticized J.K. Rowling herself for her political views, which are essentially left wing, though of a decidedly less extreme stripe than those coming up. Keep that in mind.

J.K. Rowling's political views have been consistent throughout her life. She believes in social healthcare, welfare, women's rights, gay rights, ect. Her views are garden variety left-wing from the early 2000's. While she has garnered criticisms for these views a number of times, like when she donated a million British Pounds to the Labour Party, which gained some criticism from British Conservatives who felt her books were decidedly Conservative in nature. She has also spoken out against American President Donald J Trump on a number of occasions, earning her the ire of many American Conservatives, and a variety of YouTube grifters such as Paul Joseph Watson. In addition to her political views, Rowling made a number of statements to Harry Potter fans on social media, angering hardcore fans by saying that she imagined characters being different races, and one character being gay when no allusion in the books ever existed. Her pandering to the hyper left-wing, intersectional inhabitants of Twitter would lead to one of the largest and most insane public freak outs ever seen on the platform. Before this meltdown, she was a darling in left-wing circles, and quoted constanly, much like her books themselves.

In response to a woman saying that biological sex is real, and being subsequently fired for it, J.K. Rowling tweeted the following

Tweet | Article about it

This one Tweet was enough to ignite a firestorm. Transsexuals' and their 'allies' all across social media dog-piled Rowling spectacularly, and unlike every other celebrity that's been faced with this witch trial style burning at the stake for 'Transphobia' she refused to bend the knee, and argued further. This, predictably, only fanned the flames.

Excerpt from the article showing various Twitter reactions

One said: “I believe this case is a vitally important landmark. We must treat this in the same way we have treated sexism, racism, homophobia.

“Nobody is suggesting she isn’t allowed her opinion but it’s dangerous language that harms people. She should be held accountable for it.”

Freddy McConnell, who became a voice for the trans community after making his film “Seahorse”, about being a dad who gave birth, said: “It’s a dog whistle, Joanne.”
A parent said: “My daughter, who is trans, is a big fan of yours. It breaks my heart to see you post something indicating that discrimination against her is perfectly fine behaviour for an employee.

“The world’s most credible medical orgs affirm trans people. Please catch up.”

Another person said: I grew up as a trans child reading your books as an escape. I would often pick out names from characters to give to myself, before I ever felt comfortable in who I was.

After the various Twitter exchanges J.K. Rowling went quiet for a while, taking a break from the mental illness inducing website Twitter (Something she says she does occasionally, as social media in general is bad for your mental health). All the while various Harry Potter fan sites figuratively exploded, many users arguing over her statements. During her break she wrote a 3,600 word essay on her website (Children's Portal | Adults Portal) that further explains her position. Again, she refused to apologize, or change her view, which would further incense the lunatics she angered online, even cast members of the Harry Potter Films denounced her, and because of this she didn't attend or involve herself in the filming of the HBOMax documentary about the film series(This article is very salty).

Here's the full essay, spoilered for length.

Spoiler: Full Essay

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

The following Tweet sums up J.K. Rowling's opinions of trans people.


Tweet

Anyone who isn't insane can see that her views are milquetoast at worst. Her criticism on transsexuality legislation and gender in general are very tame compared to even some of the most accepting people who browse the Farms, 4Chan, 8Chan, etc. Her blog garnered a mass of more criticism, including hundreds of articles from online publications that claim she's a hateful bigoted TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), attacking her further for 'doubling down' on her bigotry, and a variety of similar screeching diatribes. These articles are written constantly, with some published within days of this thread being written.

Even with all this negative publicity however, J.K. Rowling has received a plethora of support from women across the Western world. One even got fired from her job due to her saying that 'J.K. Rowling is my woman of the year'. Not just women support her either. The actor of fan favorite character from the Harry Potter series Hagrid, Robbie Coltrane, wrote in defense of Rowling. The following quote is from an article by Insider.

"I don't think what she said was offensive really," Coltrane said during an interview with the Radio Times that was seen by Pink News. "I don't know why, but there's a whole Twitter generation of people who hang around waiting to be offended. They wouldn't have won the war, would they?"

He added: "That's me talking like a grumpy old man, but you just think: 'Oh, get over yourself. Wise up, stand up straight, and carry on.'"

Coltrane then continued to say he did not want to speak on the issue any further "because of all the hate mail and all that s--- which I don't need at my time of life."

Rowling's blog post even won the Russel Prize for Best Writing from the BBC. This, shockingly, caused immense online backlash and further articles were written about it. Rowling's next book, about a serial killer pretending to be a woman to get close to victims, incited more backlash. Over the last two years J.K. Rowling has had trans activists show up to her house and dox her (Much like Dear Feeder, actually), received a plethora of death threats, and even had people telling her they hoped her house would be bombed.



Tweet

As shown above, Rowling's refusal to bow to the mob has made her a much hated figure in transsexual and adjacent circles, even though she is widely supported by women across the world who find trans activists and their aggressive, misogynistic actions terrifying. With her stance on the issue unchanging, it brought her into contact with one of the best known pedophile, and horse fucker, with a Kiwi Farms thread.


Vaush Thread (Plz don't shit it up with anymore Rowling talk, that's what this thread is for)

Being the enlightened son of Silicon Valley tech employees, Vaush has been championing the rise of Socialism for years, in addition to lowering the age of consent and wanting to fuck horses. Various screenshots, and audio and video clips show Vaush holding these views, and the thread has archives of them for those curious. The Tweet that got him involved with Rowling is below.



This Tweet did not go well for Vaush, as soon after Rowling responded, and clips of his support for child pornography and fucking horses have been widely circulating across Twitter and other social media sites.


Tweet

The sudden mass attention has been bad for Vaush, whose disturbing takes on children have led to notable publications exposing it to a much wider, normal audience rather than the sycophant's who constantly defend him. One article from the Post Millennial even states in it's title that he's a 'Suspected Pedophile'. Predictably, grifters from the right wing sphere of Twitter hopped in and sent more clips to these publications. Ian Miles Cheong sent clips of Vaush to the publication and it was featured in the article itself.

Despite him being a freak, Vaush is correct about Rowling in his first Tweet. All she had to do to avoid this was bend the knee to the trans mob. She could have just gone on as is with no issues for her personally. She's immensely wealthy, is re-married and her children are doing very well in their respective fields. She could have just said nothing and avoided this shitshow from the start, but she didn't, and the meltdowns and tantrums have been a near constant for going on three years now. Rowling is, however, heavily invested both financially and personally with children's charities in the UK, and it seem that she genuinely sees the problems arising from the cascade of gender affirming nonsense that has absolutely plagued public life in the last half decade. She stated her views, and unlike so many other people she refused to back down. Perhaps it's only because she's in a position of immense financial privilege, and unlike many others whose lives have been utterly destroyed by this same mob she is immune from their attempts at de-platforming and public stigmatization. Regardless of what her wealth affords her to do, many are glad she's taken the stance she has.

If you have any material that concerns J.K. Rowling herself post it for discussion. This includes news articles, YouTube videos and vids from YT alternative sites like Odysee, livestreams, social media posts, etc. If the last couple years are anything to go by there won't be a drought in content anytime soon.

J.K. Rowling Socials and General Information
Her Official Website
Twitter
Facebook
Wikipedia

Thank you so very much @Pyre for the new OP

 

[Desu Mountain]

I’m neither a nigga nor blind.

Where does the screenshot from JK Rowling say ‘t****y’ instead of cunt?

They're not talking about the tweet. They're talking about the Metro article.

 

[CatParty]

https://www.thegamer.com/hogwarts-legacy-harry-potter-jk-rowling-play-trans-friends/

Should You Play Hogwarts Legacy If You Care About Your Trans Friends?​

We don't have an exact release date for Hogwarts Legacy, but it's expected at some point in 2022, while there has been some general buzz around a trailer and other important details being shown off soon. As a trans woman who grew up reading Harry Potter, writes about video games for a living, and actively writes about gender in media frequently, I'm expecting the Harry Potter game to utterly exhaust me, and not just because it will probably have too many collectibles. Since I've been asked about Hogwarts Legacy by my real-life friends who exist outside our sphere of gaming discourse, I thought it best to organise my thoughts on the matter, and to offer up a resource for those who may have similar questions.

Some people will have read the headline and simply said "yes" or "who cares?", likely followed by some hilarious and not-at-all-recycled jokes and insults. Attack helicopters, genius! Anyway, this article is not really for them. Some people just won't care about this and, hey, there's a literal war going right now. This is not the most important thing in the world. But there are people out there concerned about this issue - I know, I've met them - and since my feelings around the game, and Harry Potter in general, have crystalised the more JK Rowling has committed to the bit, it's worth discussing them.

One final note on the very real war going on right now - I find it incredulously strange that right-wing commentators who have made a living for the past five years targeting gay people, trans people, and minorities are now lambasting us for ignoring 'the real issues'. No one forced you to write column after column after column about trans people. You were free to write about our failure to wean ourselves off Russian natural gas. You chose to write about us. We were just having a bake sale.

That's an important note because trans people do not want to be the story. We do not want to be important. We just want to go to the bathroom. It should not really matter if you play the Harry Potter game or not, but trans people are so constantly pelted with metaphorical rotten fruit in the form of legislation, hate crimes, and endless column inches that any show of solidarity is of increased importance. To answer the question in the headline, ‘should you play Hogwarts Legacy if you care about your trans friends?’, the answer is a very vague 'it depends'. I don't know you. I don't know your friends. I don't know your circumstances. But if you care enough to ask the question, the answer is probably no.

On the face of it, there is no damage being done by just playing a video game. A trans person is not kicked in the face for every copy sold. If you just buy it, play it, and quietly go about your life, you're not really hurting anyone. And hey, WB Games has repeatedly distanced itself from JK Rowling by insisting she is not involved in the game, though it also said she is entitled to her opinions, which feels like a weak rebuttal of said opinions. She still owns Harry Potter as an IP - she has not sold up. While it may be indirectly, supporting Hogwarts Legacy is supporting JK Rowling. The cash is trivial - she's already very wealthy. But as long as Harry Potter succeeds, she remains current and relevant, and her platform grows.

JK Rowling matters particularly because she is the acceptable face of transphobia. A few of her celebrity chums have declared for her in this nonsensical culture war, but none have come out with half the degree of erroneous and transphobic rhetoric as she has. A great number of middle-class media columnists seem to agree with her, and they have a significant platform themselves, but there are few other major cultural figures waiting in the wings to replace Rowling as the transphobe-in-chief. She is crucial to the movement.

For a while, it seemed as though she was being locked out of her own legacy. She was not present for the Harry Potter reunion, and again, the developers have deliberately and explicitly distanced themselves from her. However, the latest trailer for Fantastic Beasts promotes itself under her name, fluttering across the screen in huge letters. It's easy to convince ourselves that she's a pariah, that she is now divorced from the world she created, but she's not. She seems to be heading in that direction, but as long as you all support Harry Potter regardless of how hateful and deliberately malicious JK Rowling's statements become, you're saying trans people just don't matter as much as fictional wizards. A boycott got rid of Papa John after his repeated racial slurs, but Papa John’s as a business still exists. There doesn’t seem to have been any serious attempt to remove JK Rowling from the idea of Harry Potter, lest it mean missing out on the next instalment of a series that ended its golden age a decade ago.

If you say you're playing it to support the developers, sorry mate but that's bollocks. Unless you buy every video game ever because you want to inject cash into one of the biggest industries on the planet, you're not supporting the developers. You're specifically choosing to support these developers, not because you've sat down and had a nice chat with them, but because you want to play this game specifically. Support has nothing to do with it.

There is nothing wrong with just wanting to play the game because you want to. Media is powerful. Harry Potter was a definitive series of novels for a generation, and while the movies don't quite have that power, they made a lasting impression on those who saw them as children. Fantastic Beasts has spawned a successful movie series off what was essentially a coffee table stocking filler book. If Harry Potter, and by extension Hogwarts Legacy, means that much to you that no matter how conflicted you are you just can't sit it out, you can't bear to go without a game you know very little about and have not played a single second of, just say that. Don't insult us by lying that it's about supporting a faceless group of developers who you haven't met. If you're supporting them specifically because they're working on Harry Potter, then you're not supporting them. You're doing this thing called 'buying a video game'.

Don't insult us, and don't get defensive either. The people who tell me they're buying seven copies because I'll never have a womb are incredibly strange individuals, but they don't bother me. It's the people who are ordinarily very nice, normal people who consider criticism of Harry Potter's continued success as bullying against them personally. As if they are being discriminated against for being a Harry Potter fan, often followed by long and laborious rants about why Harry Potter means so much to them and horrible trannies are going to break into their houses and steal their Lego sets. JK Rowling represents the wave of aggression and hatred that erodes us every day. We don’t like her. We’re angry. If you can’t help, just play with your toys quietly and stay out of our way.

Wanting to play Hogwarts Legacy, even buying it at launch and enjoying it, does not make you a transphobe. But it’s asking you to forget about JK Rowling's obvious bigotry and continue to fund her platform and provide her with ongoing cultural relevance in exchange for playing a video game. It doesn't make you a bad person if you make that choice, just be sure to make it knowingly.

https://mercatornet.com/why-are-activists-erasing-j-k-rowling-from-her-harry-potter-novels%EF%BF%BC/78013/

Why are activists erasing J.K. Rowling from her Harry Potter novels?​

In 2016, Ruth Barrett published Female Erasure, a collection of essays by women speaking out against gender identity politics with the aim of exposing the harmful effects of this novel belief system on the lives of women and children. In a prologue to the book, Barret assumes a male voice to illustrate how male appropriation of womanhood works first to silence and ultimately to erase women:

Because I am a woman, therefore you must treat me as if I actually am, otherwise you are transphobic. As I insist on participating as a woman in your groups, gatherings, or spaces you also must forgo discussing anything about your female socialization, female anatomy, or female functions because it hurts my feelings. It hurts my feelings because I was neither socialized as a girl nor am I capable of experiencing what the female body experiences from cradle to grave. But if you speak about this I am then reminded that I am not female and therefore not really a woman. My experience of feeling like a woman must not be invalidated by your experiences of being a woman, therefore I will shame you for being female, teach you in university to estrange your body from your mind, make your distinct physicality and oppression that is specific to your sex irrelevant in the laws of the land or anything that names our differences until there is only the mind. Now only how I think about your body is real … My word is now more real than your mitochondrial DNA. Accept that by my word, you really don’t exist.

The problem of female erasure is directly linked to the control of language. Women who may no longer observe the reality of biological sex are deprived even of the words they need to communicate distinctly female experiences and perspectives.

Since the project of erasing women is unreasonable on its face, trans activists avoid debate and instead rely on intimidation and insults to silence women. Germaine Greer, a long-standing opponent of the claim that “transwomen are women”, was among their earliest targets.

In her 1999 book, The Whole Woman, she framed her objections to “governments that consist of very few women” hurrying to “recognise as women, men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it” as fundamentally inconsistent with a proper understanding of what a woman is. Greer argued that these (predominantly male) governments can only co-operate with the claims of trans activists because they “see women not as another sex but as a non-sex”. Greer has advanced this same orthodox feminist argument – that women are not defective men or “non-men” – in many fora and with varying degrees of delicacy but sticking faithfully to her central point: “[cutting off your penis] doesn’t make you a f**king woman, it makes you a man without a c**k!”. Unable to counter the logic that women are female (and transwomen are not), activists instead attempted to deny Greer a platform.

In Australia, similar censorship efforts were directed at Holly Lawford-Smith, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Melbourne University, when she launched a website inviting women to submit their personal stories of how their use of women-only spaces has been impacted by legislative change that replaces sex with gender identity. As the website explains:

Advocates insist that there is no conflict of interests [i.e., between biological women and transwomen]. But governments are not collecting data on the impacts of this legislative change. We’re worried about the impacts on women of men using women-only spaces, including but not limited to: changing rooms, fitting rooms, bathrooms, shelters, rape and domestic violence refuges, gyms, spas, sports, schools, accommodations, hospital wards, shortlists, prizes, quotas, political groups, prisons, clubs, events, festivals, dating apps, and language. If we can’t collect data, we can at least collect stories. Please tell us how your use of women-only spaces has been impacted.

In a move which ironically confirms the point Lawford-Smith was trying to make, almost 100 of her academic colleagues signed a letter demanding that the University of Melbourne take “swift and decisive action” in response to her “transphobic” website, which, they warned, potentially put the university in breach of its own guidelines on research integrity and inclusion. Apparently, even allowing women to speak amongst themselves about their experiences as females is forbidden.

Twitter trolls have been hanging out on JK Rowling’s twitter feed for some months ready to unleash a torrent of fury and outrage whenever she points to the fact of biological male/female difference. Their efforts to silence Rowling – or, more accurately, to erase her from the picture completely – took a proactive turn in February when The New York Times ran an advertising campaign showing a reader, “Lianna”, imagining the Harry Potter series without the books’ author. What is this, if not a graphic illustration of imagining, dreaming of, wishing for, female erasure? The underlying message is that the world really would be a better place without uppity women who won’t budge from the fact of biological sex.


For the record, Rowling acknowledges that gender identity might vary from biological sex and that there are “innumerable gender identities”. Her objection (and her unforgivable crime, for people like “Lianna”) is that Rowling has been immovable in insisting that gender identity does not erase biological sex – it should not be the only consideration guiding public policy:

“The question at the heart of this debate is whether sex or gender identity should form the basis of decisions on safeguarding, provision of services, sporting categories and other areas where women and girls currently have legal rights and protections … Using the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably obscures the central issue of this debate”.

Rowling has also expressed her solidarity for women, such as British tax specialist Maya Forstater, whose contract was not renewed over disputes about her gender critical tweets:

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Love [sic] your best life in peace and security,” wrote Rowling. “But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill”

Regrettably, not all women’s advocates are prepared to brave activist fury as courageously as Rowling. Last week, a Sydney women’s health centre issued the following grovelling apology for having dared to copy one of Rowling’s essays to its social media pages:

“Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre is sincerely sorry for the offense (sic), distress and hurt to the trans community, caused by the uploading to Facebook of the JK Rowling article on Sex and Gender. This article has been retracted. It was inadvertently uploaded to Facebook without approval.”

What would the suffragettes say to such a sorry display? Since when were women prepared to be so subservient and submissive?

Since biological sex is a fact that will not be going away anytime soon, women only need a little encouragement and the ability to ignore insults and accusations of “transphobia” to prevail. But for as long as the bullying tactics of trans activists are rewarded, we can expect to see more of their attempts to intimidate women into silence and to reimagine a world where biological sex is invisible, where women have been erased.

This is not a drill.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Should You Play Hogwarts Legacy If You Care About Your Trans Friends?​

Trans friends

There. That's the problem. Not JK, not a HP video game.

 

[chiobu]

They're saying Emma Watson took a dig at JK here when she said "I'm here for ALL witches"

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/14/bafta-2022-harry-potters-emma-watson-throws-shade-at-jk-rowling-16270462/

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

They're saying Emma Watson took a dig at JK here when she said "I'm here for ALL witches"

View attachment 3071334

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/14/bafta-2022-harry-potters-emma-watson-throws-shade-at-jk-rowling-16270462/

Watson supports Mermaids (the trans kids abuse organisation). She can eat shit.

 

[ufukiniggas]

They're saying Emma Watson took a dig at JK here when she said "I'm here for ALL witches"

View attachment 3071334

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/14/bafta-2022-harry-potters-emma-watson-throws-shade-at-jk-rowling-16270462/

I mean she looks like a tranny in that video so... eh.
I do wonder sometimes if ugly women support trannies because then at least they look closer to normal and/or not as hideous.

 

[CatParty]

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/03/14/dc-comics-writer-andrew-wheeler-claims-harry-potter-author-j-k-rowling-is-playing-with-my-personal-safety-for-rhetorical-clout/

DC Comics Writer Andrew Wheeler Claims Harry Potter Author J.K. Rowling Is “Playing With My Personal Safety For Rhetorical Clout”​

DC Comics writer and former Editor-in-Chief of Comics Alliance Andrew Wheeler, known for pitching Justice League Queer, recently claimed that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling is “playing with my personal safety for rhetorical clout.”

While the Editor-in-Chief at Comics Alliance, Wheeler made clear his goals were to radically alter the comic book world.

He wrote, “We need to get from some to enough. And really, we’ll know we’ve achieved success when Captain America can have a boyfriend, and Wonder Woman can have a girlfriend. For queer representation in superhero comics, that’s what success looks like.”

Wheeler’s claim regarding Rowling came after he accused her of “empowering far right forces.”

On March 12th, Rowling took to Twitter where she wrote, “I don’t think our politicians have the slightest idea how much anger is building among women from all walks of life at the attempts to threaten and intimidate them out of speaking publicly about their own rights, their own bodies and their own lives.”

In a subsequent tweet she added, “Among the thousands of letters and emails I’ve received are disillusioned members of Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Women are scared, outraged and angry at the deaf ear turned to their well-founded concerns. But women are organising.”

She concluded the short thread writing, “Now Keir Starmer publicly misrepresents equalities law, in yet another indication that the Labour Party can no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights. But I repeat: women are organising across party lines, and their resolve and their anger are growing.”

In response to this thread a Twitter user by the name of JonnyWorst wrote, “Thank you for speaking up so powerfully. It’s a tragedy and a scandal that our gay rights organisations are now dedicated to undermining both women’s rights and the very foundation of same-sex attraction.”

Rowling responded to the tweet writing, “Innumerable gay people have been in touch with me to say exactly this. Like women, they – especially lesbians – are under attack for not wishing to be redefined and for refusing to use ideological language they find offensive.”

Wheeler would respond to this tweet from Rowling accusing her of “empowering far right forces.”

He wrote, “You are empowering far right forces that endanger all women and queer people with misleading and hateful rhetoric. It’s not too late for you to walk back from the dark path you’ve found yourself on.”

“Please listen to the people who are asking you to lead with love,” he added.


Wheeler would add, “(I won’t see your responses to this, folks, so why not spend the time you might have used crafting a scathing put-down to instead reflect on how the authoritarian right manufactures ‘culture wars’ to divide its opponents. Love and light. Protect trans kids.)”


Rowling would respond to Wheeler’s initial response using a standard meme format of presenting different groups’ opinion on a topic. She wrote, “Far right to little boy wearing a dress: take that off, it means you’re not a real man. Gender identity theorists: wanting to wear dresses means you’re really a girl. Radical feminists: boys can wear dresses, you look great!”

Rowling then questioned, “Which of these two positions are most alike, Andrew?”

It’s this tweet that Wheeler claims that Rowling is “playing with my personal safety for rhetorical clout.”

He would write on Twitter, “I would prepare to give R the benefit of the doubt, to believe that she cannot conceive of the scale of the abuse she invites into people’s lives, but this is extraordinary.”

She retweeted someone who tried to link me to ‘paedophiles, rapists & misogynists.'”

He then shared a screenshot of Rowling retweeting a user that responded to Wheeler claiming that Rowling was empowering far right forces. The user wrote, “I agree the far right must be happy about the Left split on gender. OTOH paedophiles, rapists & misogynists are identifying as queer and coming after women who speak up about their rights.”

“And men like this [referring to Wheeler] are joining in which must be a really dark path to find yourself on,” the user added.

In a subsequent tweet he claimed, “She’s playing with my personal safety for rhetorical clout. She’s inviting death threats against me because I asked her to lead with love rather than play into the hands of the far right.”

“Ms Rowling, please, look at what comes so easily to you. Look at what you’ve become,” he pleaded.

He concluded, “(PS. When I say the benefit of the doubt, I mean specifically with regards to her use of quote retweeting to her 14m followers. Her attitudes in other regards have been beyond any doubt for some time now.) (This is the person who claimed it was doxxing to photograph her house!)”

He would double down on his claim that Rowling is putting his safety at risk as well as his accusations against Rowling in an email newsletter.

He began the email writing, “If you didn’t hear, one of the world’s most popular authors sent her 14 million Twitter followers after me because I asked her to reconsider her rhetoric on trans issues.”

As clearly noted above, this is a blatant lie. He accused her of empowering far right voices and claimed she was endangering women and queer people.

Not to stop there with his lies, Wheeler then accused Rowling of contributing “to a pervasive atmosphere of hostility towards trans and queer people that has been weaponized as a ‘culture war’ by far right politicians.”

Ironically, Wheeler then noted that he made sure he didn’t see any responses from Rowling’s followers. He wrote, “I didn’t see those responses because I immediately set up filters that blocked them out, but enough friends reached out in concern that I knew the responses were, let’s say, candid and enthusiastic.”

Wheeler then makes the absurd claim that quote tweeting someone is inviting abuse. He stated, “When someone with a lot of followers quote-tweets to disagree with someone, they’re inviting harassment and abuse towards that person. I’m small-fry and I still avoid using quote-tweets to dunk on people with less of a platform than me.”

He went on to claim that by quote tweeting someone who noted that “paedophiles, rapists & misogynists are identifying as queer and coming after women who speak up about their rights” Rowling “had invited a threat to my safety that may hang over me for the rest of my life. Or end it.”

He continued, “Honestly, there are fewer Belgians in the world than there are people who now might want me dead.”

Wheeler then accused Rowling of harming trans kids. He wrote, “Anti-trans rhetoric hurts vulnerable populations, especially trans kids. It encourages the kind of hateful legislation that we’re seeing sweep the US. It destroys lives and it racks up a body count.”

He concluded his email, “I’m just collateral damage. The author wasn’t thinking about my safety when she quote-tweeted me, just as she isn’t thinking about trans kids when she elevates the bogeyman rhetoric that has hurt queer people for almost a century. She doesn’t seem to understand the power of her words.”

 

[thx1138]

"Protect trans kids."

If you ever say that, you should get put on a list.

What you should be saying is "Protect kids from trannies."

 

[Clem Fandango]

She wrote, “Far right to little boy wearing a dress: take that off, it means you’re not a real man. Gender identity theorists: wanting to wear dresses means you’re really a girl. Radical feminists: boys can wear dresses, you look great!”

Rowling then questioned, “Which of these two positions are most alike, Andrew?”

Did he have an answer to this?

Crying about quote-tweeting (whatever the fuck that is) being literal violence makes it look like he didn't have an answer.

 

[Ow The Edge]

If you ever say that, you should get put on a list.

Correction: you should be dragged out back and shot in the head.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

The term wasn't born there because for that to happen, you needed to have predicted it'd happen again. The word is pandering and it's good enough.

Also, I need to remind you all than, back then, this revelation wasn't well received by adult fans of HP because we were smart enough to understand that she was just trying to pander to a very specific audience.

Thats why none of my future projects have any gay characters (and if they exist, they are either very minor or are killed off rather sooner rather than later).

One of mine has a gay character and the only relevance to the plot is that others use it to discredit a more important character associated with him (e.g, "isn't he the teacher of X? He's a fag, so X is also a fag and that's why he is not to trust"). Otherwise, how he likes to fuck and who is irrelevant.

 

[Pyre]

2017

J.K. ROWLING’S TWITTER FEUD WITH TRUMP SUPPORTERS IS SO BAD SHE’S NOW FIGHTING SOME OF HER FANS​

If there’s any doubt left that we live in divisive political times, know this: Some fans of Harry Potter are burning their copies of the books to protest author J.K. Rowling’s views of the U.S. president. And she’s fighting back on Twitter, insulting those very fans.

That’s right, one of the most beloved series of books in modern history has now become a political prop. Is nothing safe?

Rowling has been vocal about her feelings concerning President Trump for some time. She has mostly used Trump’s favorite platform, Twitter, to share her criticisms.

These tweets have generated a Facebook page’s worth of headlines. But Rowling’s brushes with political controversy are nothing new.

Rowling is a dedicated progressive. She’s a strong believer in welfare, which she relied on during a particularly rough period in her life. As she said during a 2008 Harvard commencement speech, “An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless … By every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew.”

More recently, Rowling found herself in the midst of a Twitter battlesurrounding Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, referred to as Brexit, which she staunchly opposed.

Much of this now seemingly endless debate was absent during the height of the Harry Potter craze because the author didn’t publicly discuss her views until the publication of the final book in the series. In 2008, a year after “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” hit bookshelves, Rowling gave 1 million pounds to Britain’s Labour Party.

That same year, speaking to El Pais, she said of the U.S. presidential campaign in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were battling for the Democratic nomination: “I want a Democrat in the White House. It seems a pity that Clinton and Obama have to be rivals, because both are extraordinary.”

Anyone who gave the Harry Potter books a close reading likely wouldn’t have been surprised by Rowling’s politics.

Most of the subplots involve the triumph of marginalized peoples, be it the mixed-heritage Hermione, a “mudbl–d,” the poverty-stricken Weasleys, the stigmatized
Hagrid (essentially an ex-offender reintroduced to society who can no longer practice magic as a result) or the “lower class” house elf named Dobby (the most obvious analogue to American slavery).

Harry himself, after all, was an orphan and survivor of attempted infanticide.

In his book “Harry Potter and the Millennials,” Anthony Gierzynski wrote that, “the evidence indicates that Harry Potter fans are more open to diversity and are more politically tolerant than nonfans; fans are also less authoritarian, less likely to support the use of deadly force or torture, more politically active, and more likely to have had a negative view of the Bush administration.”

Rowling invites anyone to challenge her.

Once Rowling opened up about her beliefs, it has been a steady stream ever since. And while attacking her own fans might seem like a poor marketing choice, it’s important to note one of the values that Rowling holds most dear: freedom of speech.

“Intolerance of alternative viewpoints is spreading to places that make me, a moderate and a liberal, most uncomfortable. Only last year, we saw an online petition to ban Donald Trump from entry to the U.K. It garnered half a million signatures,” she said during the 2016 PEN America Literary Gala at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. “I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot. His freedom guarantees mine.”

Rowling had already faced some conflict before she publicly expressed her political views. Her Harry Potter books were maligned by some Christian groups, making it one of the most challenged books in 2000, as tracked by the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, according to the New York Times.

“The challenges seem to be objecting to occult or supernatural content in the books and are being made largely by traditional Christians who believe the Bible is a literal document,” Virginia Walter, president of the ALA’s Association for Library Service to Children, told the newspaper. “Any exposure to witches or wizards shown
shown in a positive light is anathema to them. Many of these people feel that the books are door-openers to topics that desensitize children to very real evils in the world.”

The outcry didn’t come only from fringe, radical sects of Christianity, either. As noted in the Christian Post, when Pope Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he condemned the books for their “subtle seductions, which act unnoticed … deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly.”

There’s a certain irony to this, considering Rowling has said that Christianity was a great inspiration for the books.

“To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious,” she said at a 2007 news conference. “But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going.”

There were Christian references throughout the series. When Harry visits his parents’ graves in one book, the headstone reads, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” — an abridged version of 1 Corinthians 15:26.

The graveyard is also the final resting place of headmaster Albus Dumbledore’s mother and sister, whose tombstone bears the inscription, “Where your treasure is, there your heart be also” — a direct quote from Matthew 6:19.

“I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric’s Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series,” Rowling said at the news conference."

This is an old article obviously, but I find the comparison between her critics from then and her critics now hilarious. Far right fundies burn her books for wrong think, and far left loonies burn her books for wrong think. The last several years must be such a trip for this woman.

 

[taintmisbehavin]

I love J.K. Rowling. She is a wealthy woman who could have a whole team managing her Twitter account while she swims in her money bin, but instead she uses it to give the gender spergs aneurysms. The betrayal from the only writer they read, and the need to hide their continued throwing money at Harry Potter products and visits to Universal Studios just makes it that much sweeter.

 

[ChaChaHeels:BlackOnes]

putting a Hogwarts house in your dating app bio is an effective troon repellent.

thanks JK!

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

putting a Hogwarts house in your dating app bio is an effective troon repellent.

thanks JK!

I heard lesbians on dating sites are putting things like "JKR is my favorite writer" in their bio to make troonbians go away.

 

[CatParty]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/03/j-k-rowling-decided-speak-behalf-lesbians-omg-didnt-go-well/

J.K. Rowling decided to speak on behalf of lesbians & OMG it didn’t go over well​

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling continued to attack transgender women online, but this time the billionaire straight woman opted to speak on behalf of lesbians.

And it landed with a thud, launching the hashtag #JKRowlingDoesntSpeakForMe.

Rowling’s continued transphobic antics have led many Harry Potter fans to distance themselves from her. Rowling has found support, however, in the far-right.The author has issued diatribes about transgender people, come out in support of conversion therapy for trans people, and claimed that almost everyone agrees with her, even as famous people that she has worked with condemned her words. She also published a book about a man who wears dresses in order to kill women.

As part of her ongoing back-and-forth with anti-transgender activists who describe themselves as “feminists” with the same ignorant glee that Republican gun owners define themselves as “pro-life,” Rowling decided to wade into the water.

She responded back to a man who had tweeted to her, “It’s a tragedy and a scandal that our gay rights organisations are now dedicated to undermining both women’s rights and the very foundation of same-sex attraction.”

“Innumerable gay people have been in touch with me to say exactly this,” Rowling pontificated in her retweet. “Like women, they – especially lesbians – are under attack for not wishing to be redefined and for refusing to use ideological language they find offensive.”

But the vast majority of lesbians – and the rest of the LGBTQ community – don’t feel “under attack” by our fellow community members. And we’ve seen these types of attacks from straight people before – including those who gussy up their claims with “my gay friend” appeals.

“Nah, we stand with the trans community. It’s also not an attack to call someone out for their transphobia!” activist Eliel Cruz tweeted in reply.

“Her attitude and behaviour disgusts me,” Elizabeth Hamlet replied. “Someone I once considered a hero and admired so much. It’s broken my heart to see she is full of hate and encourages hate towards others. I’m a cis woman and consider myself a feminist. She does not speak for me.”

“Since #JKrowlingDoesntSpeakForMe is trending can I just put out there that as a real woman and not a fragile man that JK ROWLING DOES SPEAK FOR ME,” conservative journalist Sophie Corcoran added.

And when Andrew Wheeler implored Rowling that “It’s not too late for you to walk back from the dark path you’ve found yourself on,” he finished by asking her to “please listen tot he people who are asking you to lead with love.”

But like Voldemort himself, instead, Rowling opted to retweet one of her anti-trans cohorts who linked him to “paedophiles, rapists & misogynists.” She apparently opted to skip right over “love” and go for “dangerous stereotypes that lead to violence and death threats” instead. With over 13M followers, the influential author’s claims and castigations have led to threats of violence and online harassment by her anti-trans fans.

“She’s playing with my personal safety for rhetorical clout,” he posted in response. “She’s inviting death threats against me because I asked her to lead with love rather than play into the hands of the far right.”

“Ms Rowling, please, look at what comes so easily to you. Look at what you’ve become.”

Innumerable gay people have been in touch with me to say exactly this. Like women, they – especially lesbians – are under attack for not wishing to be redefined and for refusing to use ideological language they find offensive. https://t.co/kT2J8UtDHU
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) March 12, 2022

She's playing with my personal safety for rhetorical clout. She's inviting death threats against me because I asked her to lead with love rather than play into the hands of the far right.
Ms Rowling, please, look at what comes so easily to you. Look at what you've become.
— Andrew Wheeler (@Wheeler) March 12, 2022

Nah, we stand with the trans community. It’s also not an attack to call someone out for their transphobia!
— Eliel Cruz (@elielcruz) March 12, 2022

Her attitude and behaviour disgusts me. Someone I once considered a hero and admired so much. It's broken my heart to see she is full of hate and encourages hate towards others. I'm a cis woman and consider myself a feminist. She does not speak for me #JKrowlingDoesntSpeakForMe
— Elizabeth Hamlet (@Levicoaster) March 14, 2022

Since #JKrowlingDoesntSpeakForMe is trending can I just put out there that as a real woman and not a fragile man that
JK ROWLING DOES SPEAK FOR ME
— Sophie Corcoran (@sophielouisecc) March 13, 2022

I am a bisexual cisgendered man and #JKrowlingDoesntSpeakForMe. Her foul rhetoric about transgender people shows a wanton lack of empathy that is only exacerbated by the terribly hateful content of her books, which exhibit racism, stereotypes, and endorse bullying. https://t.co/Sa0LTPzut6
— Phobos Reborn (@DauntlessPhobos) March 13, 2022

 

[Troonologist PhD]

@CatPart JK Rowling continues to be awesome. #ActivistsDontSpeakForMe

 

[CatParty]

https://wealthofgeeks.com/jk-rowling-harry-potter-vaush-comments/

Last week, YouTuber Ian “Vaush” Kochinski, a left-wing YouTube personality, harshly condemned J.K. Rowling’s transphobia by directing misogynist rhetoric at her. In doing so, he provided a good example of why using bigotry against bigots is a poor way to advance equality or justice for marginalized people.

Rowling, tweeting on International Women’s Day, made a grotesque argument against a Scottish bill that would make it easier for trans people to have their legal documents fit their gender. Vaush responded by writing “All JK Rowling had to do was shut the f*** up and she could have been almost uncritically beloved for like a century. Women be quieter and start apologizing challenge.”

Vaush’s “joke” that women need to talk less fits into ugly misogynist tropes. Vaush thought he was being funny and ironic, and shaming Rowling by targeting her gender. However, there are at least two main reasons why this approach is ineffective and immoral.

The first, and less important one, is that it gives the target a chance to play the victim and shift the conversation away from their own bad behavior and bigotry.

All bigots like to engage in projection and reversal and claim that they are victims. That’s certainly the case for transphobes and TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) who constantly claim that trans women are predators. This despite the fact that there is no evidence that trans women attack women in bathrooms, to refute one common slanderous and inflammatory version of this myth.

Rowling herself loves to push the trans predator myth; she wrote an entire novel portraying a trans woman as a serial killer in line with influential transphobic thrillers like Psycho and Silence of the Lambs.

And sure enough, Rowling quickly quote-tweeted Vaush’s misogynist response to her. She compared him to her violent ex-husband, suggesting that trans advocates are the same as violent abusers.

TERFs, transphobes, and bigots will claim to be attacked no matter how gently people ask them to stop being TERFs, transphobes and bigots. Still, advocates don’t need to feed into these narratives by using bigotry themselves and handing the bad actors a propaganda victory that could be used to sway the uncommitted or uncertain. Even people who support trans rights are likely to look at Vaush’s tweet and find themselves acknowledging that Rowling is right; it’s misogynist. When pointing out Rowling’s transphobia, you don’t want to push people of good faith into a position of agreeing with her on any point.

That brings us to the more important problem with Vaush’s approach. Normalizing misogynist slurs, especially normalizing them as a weapon that men can use against women, harms all women, including trans women. Tolerating or encouraging misogyny—even ironically, even against one’s enemies—doesn’t create better coalitions for women. After all, what happens if men like Vaush decide, for whatever reason, that a particular woman is no longer an ally? Is that woman suddenly a worthy target for misogyny?

You can see this dynamic play out in response to Vaush’s tweet. Women are likely to be less comfortable with misogyny than men; they are the ones most likely to protest when misogyny is used by men. Some leading trans women YouTubers, including Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) and Kat Blaque pointed out that misogyny, even aimed at transphobes, doesn’t necessarily make trans women feel safe or defended. Vaush doubled down and quadrupled down, and soon several trans women were swamped with Vaush’s 200k followers spouting aggressive accusations and insults.

Vaush claims he wanted to advocate for trans women. Instead, he allowed J.K. Rowling to win an argument with him in a damaging way, and then encouraged multiple dogpiles on trans women.

Using misogyny is bad in itself; it’s wrong to direct sexism against any woman, even if they are terrible people. But beyond morality, Vaush’s failure here demonstrates that using bigotry in this way is simply counterproductive. You end up aiding your enemies and harming those you claim to want to help.

Vaush is not the first person to demonstrate that you can’t use the Ring of Power against Sauron. So why do people of supposed goodwill keep rushing up to grab bigotry and fondle it and call it “my precious”?

As Gollum knows, picking up the ring gives you a pleasurable rush. Lots of people enjoy the thrill of thumping an enemy, and leveraging bigotry or stigma against your enemy can feel especially brutal or violent. Using bigotry against bigots feels proportional and righteous; it feels empowering. And, as the success of the MCU demonstrates, people really like empowerment fantasies.

The success of the MCU also demonstrates that people will pay a lot for empowerment fantasies. That means that being a jerk for the left can be lucrative. Cable news figures like Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, podcasters like Chapo Trap House, and YouTubers like Vaush elaborately bash right-wing figures for a paying audience. They can’t make as much as right-wing bigots; with the right’s massive ecosystem and bottomless unscrupulousness. But they can often make more than they might if they adopted a more sober and responsible approach.

The result is that a significant number of people on the left have emotional and financial incentives not to listen when trans women tell them that targeting Rowling with misogyny is not necessarily helpful. They instead have incentives to attack trans women or other marginalized people who object. Which is again, a big part of the problem.

Empowerment fantasies aren’t evil in themselves. Telling bad people they suck can be cathartic and can help lift spirits and rally resistance. You don’t want to get to the point where the empowerment fantasies eat you like that Ring of Power, though. The goal shouldn’t be to thump bigots with bigotry. It should be a world where no one gets thumped with bigotry, and everyone is equal, safe, and free.

 

[Positron]

Rowling committed another genocide, by calling out the Cardiff Police for diverting their funds to appease the rainbow degenerates.


In other news, John Waters, director of trashy "cult" movies, wants to cancel Rowling (archive of NYT article)

What about when people become pariahs for things that are outside the work? Which has happened to folks you’ve worked with — Johnny Depp, for example What’s your view of that?

It’s a good thing we are not going retroactive here because practically every artist would be canceled. I have a thing about who I would cancel: J.K. Rowling. Give her some Preparation H for that transphobia. What’s the matter with her? There are people I would like to cancel, but at the same time I’m saying it humorously. I’m not going to go through each person who’s been canceled and say what I think, but I never saw Johnny Depp act negatively to a woman in my entire life — and I did drugs and got drunk with him.

 

[SuperShibuyaFighter]

I mean she looks like a tranny in that video so... eh.
I do wonder sometimes if ugly women support trannies because then at least they look closer to normal and/or not as hideous.

I sometimes wonder if that level 10 schizo conspiracy that all women in Hollywood are trans women (sometimes also the theory being all HW men are trans men) to sexually confuse the masses has any sort of truth to it. You have to be mentally retarded to believe that conspiracy fully but I don't doubt there might be some instances of that being true. Jennifer Aniston for example has ways been artificially overhyped and somehow still is today yet she has one of the ugliest man looking faces I've ever seen on a woman.