JK Rowling Backlash

[clearspira]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

I don't question that is what the Harry Potter franchise wants to be about, but there is a reason why TVTropes has filled so many of its more negative entries such as Broken Aesop with Potter. I won't go into them as you can just go and read them, although in hindsight, maybe its not that much of a surprise given what we now know about her. If for example she was trying to write morals that she did not agree with then I can certainly see why they would end up conflicting.

I do find it interesting however that Harry Potter as a franchise has multiple examples of gender swapping but not one of them ever treats it as anything more than a burden. And yeah, I realise that its a young adult book and thus there are limits, but I still find that interesting. These are hormonal teenagers suddenly finding themselves as the opposite sex after all, you would think that Ginny as Harry at least would have something to comment.

[J!!]

youtu.be/Yk41CHuVUes

[clearspira]

youtu.be/Yk41CHuVUes

Honestly, I would say no, you don't need to love JK to love Harry Potter. Ian Fleming for example by modern standards was a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and an imperialist. Doesn't stop his franchise from selling.

Also can I just add that I have never watched a video by Movie Bob before and I never intend to do so again. StopTalkingSoFastICannotUnderstandYouForGodsSake.

[Antiboyscout]

youtu.be/Yk41CHuVUes

Honestly, I would say no, you don't need to love JK to love Harry Potter. Ian Fleming for example by modern standards was a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and an imperialist. Doesn't stop his franchise from selling.

Also can I just add that I have never watched a video by Movie Bob before and I never intend to do so again. StopTalkingSoFastICannotUnderstandYouForGodsSake.

Movie Bob? Thank god I didn't click.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

[Draco Dracul]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

She literally came out in favor of not allowing trans women into the majority of domestic violence shelters.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

She literally came out in favor of not allowing trans women into the majority of domestic violence shelters.

I assume the ones that are women-only? I don't think that's calling for inferior treatment of trans-women there.

If you don't want men in those shelters, are you for inferior treatment of men? I'm not saying that trans-women are (or aren't) men (again, I think it's semantics), but that's not trying to get inferior treatment of trans-women unless men are getting inferior treatment too.

Arguably men are getting inferior treatment (I'm not saying they are or aren't), but I'll assume that's not your argument.

The same for women's sports. Men aren't allowed to compete against women in most sports because men have a ridiculous advantage in most sports (ultra-long-distance running being the only sport I know of where women have an advantage) (I thought the breast stroke would count too, but man was I wrong about that one...) You could argue that trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, or that some trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, or that no trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, in good faith. I don't think the evidence is in yet.

[Draco Dracul]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

She literally came out in favor of not allowing trans women into the majority of domestic violence shelters.

I assume the ones that are women-only? I don't think that's calling for inferior treatment of trans-women there.

If you don't want men in those shelters, are you for inferior treatment of men? I'm not saying that trans-women are (or aren't) men (again, I think it's semantics), but that's not trying to get inferior treatment of trans-women unless men are getting inferior treatment too.

Arguably men are getting inferior treatment (I'm not saying they are or aren't), but I'll assume that's not your argument.

Banning trans women from women's shelters is massively transphobic and is out right saying that they are not women. While the horrific lack of men's shelters for domestic violence is a major issue, it's also irrelevant the issue at hand. In a world where men had domestically violence shelters of equal number and quality to women's shelters banning trans women into those shelters would result in inferior care because they would be specialized in helping with men's issues.

The same for women's sports. Men aren't allowed to compete against women in most sports because men have a ridiculous advantage in most sports (ultra-long-distance running being the only sport I know of where women have an advantage) (I thought the breast stroke would count too, but man was I wrong about that one...) You could argue that trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, or that some trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, or that no trans-women should be allowed to compete against biological women, in good faith. I don't think the evidence is in yet.

With the exception of height, any physiological advantages a trans woman would have are negated bythe transition requirements and neccessary hormone caps they need to be under in order to compete. A trans woman that has had bottom surgery will need medication to get up to the testosterone levels of the average cis woman.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

She literally came out in favor of not allowing trans women into the majority of domestic violence shelters.

I assume the ones that are women-only? I don't think that's calling for inferior treatment of trans-women there.

If you don't want men in those shelters, are you for inferior treatment of men? I'm not saying that trans-women are (or aren't) men (again, I think it's semantics), but that's not trying to get inferior treatment of trans-women unless men are getting inferior treatment too.

Arguably men are getting inferior treatment (I'm not saying they are or aren't), but I'll assume that's not your argument.

Banning trans women from women's shelters is massively transphobic and is out right saying that they are not women. While the horrific lack of men's shelters for domestic violence is a major issue, it's also irrelevant the issue at hand. In a world where men had domestically violence shelters of equal number and quality to women's shelters banning trans women into those shelters would result in inferior care because they would be specialized in helping with men's issues.

I'm going to leave aside the relative lack of domestic violence services for me, if that's OK with you. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on it; it's just that that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

How is it saying trans-women are not women? In all honesty, you could consider those shelters to be for biological women, couldn't you?

Look at it this way, if you would -- why are men kept out of women's domestic violence shelters? If the "It's ma'am" trans-woman of (perhaps not completely fair) YouTube infamy (I'm sure I can find it if you don't know who I mean) said she wanted into a shelter, would the biological women feel safer than if a man of the same size and strength were allowed in?

While it's true that some women are substantially bigger and/or stronger than others, the difference between biological women and trans-women is going to be pretty close to the difference between biological men and biological women unless hrt is being done, and even then the difference can be significant.

As to your second point, I have to give you that one in all fairness. Men's shelters would not generally be geared to handle trans-women's issues. Nor particular issues relating to deaf men, nor people who are only fluent in Vietnamese. I'm not saying that's right, honestly. But about half a percent in the U.S. identify as transgender, not all of whom are trans-women, and not every unusual need can be accommodated.

[Draco Dracul]

Well no shit. Fan sites and the stars of the Wizarding franchise have a vested interest in the franchise continuing to thrive, and that will quickly stop being true if the franchise about self-acceptance, embracing the misfits of society, and standing in the face of bigotry and fascism has an openly bigoted creator controlling it. Creating the perception of distance is a stopgap while people figure out if she can be disentangled from it.

But you said that it's OK to say discriminatory things if nobody gets hurt.

Nobody gets hurt and demeaning/delegitimizing trans people are things that very rarely go hand in hand.

She's not demeaning, she's saying that transwomen aren't biologically women. She's not arguing for transwomen having any inferior treatment at all AFAIK.
You can take that as delegitimizing if you want, and that's fine; you have the same right to your opinion that she does, and I'll defend your right to your opinion just as much. But if you can trace any violence to Rowling's opinion I'd be very much surprised. Impressed, too.

She literally came out in favor of not allowing trans women into the majority of domestic violence shelters.

I assume the ones that are women-only? I don't think that's calling for inferior treatment of trans-women there.

If you don't want men in those shelters, are you for inferior treatment of men? I'm not saying that trans-women are (or aren't) men (again, I think it's semantics), but that's not trying to get inferior treatment of trans-women unless men are getting inferior treatment too.

Arguably men are getting inferior treatment (I'm not saying they are or aren't), but I'll assume that's not your argument.

Banning trans women from women's shelters is massively transphobic and is out right saying that they are not women. While the horrific lack of men's shelters for domestic violence is a major issue, it's also irrelevant the issue at hand. In a world where men had domestically violence shelters of equal number and quality to women's shelters banning trans women into those shelters would result in inferior care because they would be specialized in helping with men's issues.

I'm going to leave aside the relative lack of domestic violence services for me, if that's OK with you. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on it; it's just that that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

How is it saying trans-women are not women? In all honesty, you could consider those shelters to be for biological women, couldn't you?

Look at it this way, if you would -- why are men kept out of women's domestic violence shelters? If the "It's ma'am" trans-woman of (perhaps not completely fair) YouTube infamy (I'm sure I can find it if you don't know who I mean) said she wanted into a shelter, would the biological women feel safer than if a man of the same size and strength were allowed in?

While it's true that some women are substantially bigger and/or stronger than others, the difference between biological women and trans-women is going to be pretty close to the difference between biological men and biological women unless hrt is being done, and even then the difference can be significant.

To be blunt if you allow that arguement it will not be long before you see certain shelters effectively putting blanket bans on black women who have historically been viewed as more masculine and less feminine than white or Asian women.