#anti J. K. Rowling

[thenightling]

In defense of John Lithgow

In defense of John Lithgow...

It's official. John Lithgow is going to play Dumbledore for the Harry Potter TV series.

I noticed John Lithgow is already getting a lot of hate for accepting the role and being treated as a transphobe by default. There's a very public open letter essentially telling him he's not an ally if he doesn't quit.

Here are some things to consider.

1. If he quits, it doesn't change how much money J. K. Rowling gets for the project. They would just find someone else.

2. John Lithgow just starred in a very pro LGBTQAI+ movie as a gay grandfather to a nonbinary grand-child. He is pro-nonbinary and trans rights and actively supported the community up to this point.

3. John Lithgow is from the US. This violates J. K. Rowling's stance for Dumbledore to only ever be played by NON-American (preferably UK or Irsh) actors). His casting specifically undermines her very firm stance that prevented Robin Williams from playing Hagrid in the movies and this casting choice IS a middle finger to J. K. Rowling.

Think about it. They chose a very vocally pro-LGBTQAI+ actor who just starred in an LGBTQAI+ family film about a gay grandfather and nonbinary grand child. And not just that. He's American. He's precisely the sort of person she does NOT want as Dumbledore. Consider this spite-casting. Notice J. K. Rowling has not commented yet about the casting. She is NOT happy and is probably under an NDA preventing her from speaking out against it. If she actually liked the casting you know she'd have said something by now.

So please don't think ill of John Lithgow over this.

He was also Emperor Norton in the very pro Queer The Sandman audio drama, which features nonbinary and trans actors and characters such as Mason Alexander Park as Desire and Reece Lyons as Wanda.

[axelwolf8109]

Yes Rowling is garbage and yes the movies are bad but I will always LOVE Prisoner Of Azkaban, book or film

[ingek73]

…..

[smol-trans-goblin]

~A MESSAGE TO J.K. ROWLING~

When I was young, your writing inspired me. It made me hopeful. I hyperfixated on it for years, played Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit, drew my Patronus, and infodumped on my dad for hours on end. I turned my garage into Honeydukes for my eighth birthday, and put a drawing of Moaning Myrtle in my family's bathroom. My grandma and I watched the movies together, staying up late and complaining about the fact that Peeves didn't make an appearance. I idolized you.

Then I realized I was a transgender boy.

I read about what you'd said. How we were predators and r@p1sts. How trans women were just 'men in dresses'. How there were no trans kids. I lost that spark of happiness I used to get from seeing Platform 9 3/4 pins on people's bags, from finding fanfiction on ao3, from my Snitch replica that hung from my ceiling. My Harry Potter paperbacks, well-worn from taking them everywhere, were left to gather dust on my shelf.

And now this.

I am not looking for attention. I am not trying to "let complete strangers know I don't fancy a shag." I am not pretending I'm oppressed. I AM oppressed. Yesterday, I marched with thousands of people, to fight the people like you, who ARE oppressing us, who want us to disappear. I can't believe I loved you, I wanted to be you, I trusted you. And you betrayed me. You betrayed us. I don't understand how you sleep at night, knowing what you've said.

I hope the dementors come for you next.

[marauderstars]

JKR is now calling trans women “trans identified men” - while still somehow preaching about the ways that men police “femaleness.” JKR and her allies are the only ones who are allowed to gatekeep who and what counts as a woman, apparently. The hypocrisy here is multilayered - she rebukes someone who has a particular idea of what a woman is, and yet she herself has constructed a similarly limited idea of what a woman is - one that excludes trans women. But also - it’s not an accident that all the targets of this kind of transphobia (“protect women’s sport,” “protect women-only spaces,” “some trans women are abusers”) are trans women - not trans men. Under the guise of feminism, she denies the identities and rights of some of the most vulnerable and systemically oppressed women alive today. Trans women are women. To deny that because it doesn’t conform to your “sex-based” definition of womanhood - THAT is the very definition of misogyny.

[greencarnation]

[crazycatsiren]

Me: I should be more active on Bookstagram to connect with more bookworms out there.

Instagram ads: would you like Harry Potter everything now.

[zndr315-blog]

GO OFF, KING!!!!

For whatever reason, I found myself thinking about the theme of heritage/inheritance in Harry Potter and how it's, like, catastrophically broken in the text.

The villains in Harry Potter are almost unanimously racist and classist - they believe they are entitled to behave however they wish and live at the top of the social hierarchy because they were born to rich, pureblooded families, and anyone who wasn't is filth to be exploited and/or purged. That's the philosophy of evil in the book - "I deserve everything because I was born in the right family with the right genes and the right social standing. My heritage makes me better than you."

All the injustice and evil in the books is rooted in this belief in entitlement by way of heritage. People are abused and die because of it. Inherited wealth and status, and more specifically the unfair priveleges it affords, is the root of evil in Harry Potter.

So you'd think the protagonist would present some sort of strong contrast to it, right? That they'd be born poor, or mixed race, etc. But no, Harry is from a rich pureblood family, with the vast wealth and social status that affords.

Well, that's OK, we can still make a contrast. Maybe Harry differs in how he acts with wealth - perhaps, realizing his inheritance is an unfair privilege, he gives it away? Maybe he works to give the underprivileged their due? Again, no, not really. He sometimes buys stuff for his poor friend Ron, and defends his "mudblood" friend Hermione from racist criticism, but he sees no reason to change the system that dehumanizes them in the first place, and by the end of the tale is pleased to exploit his privilege for his own gain.

The whole house elf subplot illustrates this failing well - we have a race of slaves who are frequently shown to suffer from abuse. One of them, the property of a rich racist, risks his life to save Harry, and Harry frees him in return. Oh, nice, finally fighting the system, eh? Except no, not really - while Harry frees that specific slave, he's content to leave the others in bondage, especially when he inherits a slave of his own.

The contrast Harry Potter puts up against its rich, racist, privileged villains is "Hey, being rich and higher in the hierarchy is awesome and just, but you can't be a dick about it." That slaves belong in the dirt, but masters should be polite while putting them in their place.

Voldemort posits himself as the heir of Slytherin - claiming his inheritance is vital to his rise to power and villainy. And Harry opposes him by... also claiming inheritance from a rich old dead guy. Hell, the final battle comes down to who rightfully inherits a specific rare Wand!

The fact that Harry and Voldemort have shit in common is not a flaw on its own - villains and heroes are often foils for each other. But in this specific tale, the relationship the villain has with inherited power is so central to the conflict that the hero having the exact same relationship is a major failing. The story is just shy of saying "Voldemort was basically right, but he shouldn't have been rude about it." It's bad from both a moral and a writing skill perspective.

(The only inheritance Harry fully rejects is parseltongue, i.e. the ability to talk to snakes, which was accidentally given to him by Voldemort, and could be argued to be a symbol of trauma rather than inherited wealth. Also I'm still salty about how that series turned on snakes so cruelly, but that's a whole other rant.)

[vavuska]

J. K. Rowling vs David Tennant: where is the truth and where the lies?

Probably everyone have read something about an unpopular opinion posted by J. K. Rowling on Twitter (cough, I mean X), where she decided to go after David Tennant. She claimed that during an interview Tennant was talking about whinging f**kers who need to just shut up. These whinging f**kers who he is referring to are women who’s rights are being oppressed, according to J. K. Rowling.

Unfortunately, Tennant didn't say anything against oppressed and abused women. Actually, Rowling is *again* pursuing her personal crusade claiming female-only = no trans-women. Tennant, after accepting an award, took the microphone and gave a speech about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the UK, and the sad need for awards like the one he received (he was honored at the British LGBT Awards with Celebrity Ally award).

During the speech, Tennant also targeted UK Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch, who had previously said she would exclude trans-women from single-sex areas. Tennant said:

“I suppose if I’m honest I’m a little depressed by the fact that acknowledging that everyone has the right to be who they want to be and live their life how they want to live it as long as they’re not hurting anyone else should merit any kind of special or award or special mention because it’s common sense, isn’t it?” Tennant said in his speech. “It’s human decency. We shouldn’t live in a world where that is worth remarking on. However until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn’t exist anymore — I don’t wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up — whilst we do live in this world I am honoured to receive this.”

Tennant’s speech started a war of words with Badenoch, who later took to social media to say she would not shut up as the actor suggested. She went on to call Tennant “a rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can’t see the optics of attacking the only Black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end.”

Which, again, is a... Ehm... Lie, since Tennant didn't attack Minister Badenoch for her ethnicity or threatened her life. Tennant speech was critical of her position regarding trans rights and not her personal life. Tennant was calling out government bigots for their political opinions regarding social issues and not attacking anyone on personal basis and NEVER - NEVER said anything about institutional racism (which Minister Badenoch herself claimed it's not a problem in UK) and violence against women (both cis and trans) not being major problems.

In a separate red carpet interview on the awards ceremony, Tennant was asked to say something to the trans youth. He responded to don't feel judged or unloved, because transphobic politicians are just a little minority: “It's a tiny bunch of little whinging f**kers who are on the wrong side of history, and they’ll all go away soon.”

The whole interview is available under here and it's sweet and heartwarming:

As always, J. K. Rowling and conservative politicians are strumentalizing LGBTQ+ awareness contents to make the community and it's allies look like evil terrorists (“gender Taliban”) and therefore pursuing their anti-trans goals while also belittling abuse perpetrated on women in religious states and systemic racism. Since violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by cisgender men, why are the Tories blaming LGBTQ+ community and it's allies?

J. K. Rowling and Minister Badenoch demonstrated through their words, how danger narratives can be invoked not only to obscure (hetero) cis men’s violence and abuse against cis and trans women, but also justify violence against the whole LGBTQ + community in the holy name of (cis-hetero) women's safety. [Here my previous post about this]

[randomtheidiot]

I think something truly tragic about the UK is that every time they get a new strong female role model, she’s pure evil.

[thejdog2000]

I feel your pain, anon.

For 4328: Yeah I that's why I am not into the Harry Potter hate bandwagon, and this is coming from someone who never cared for the series and is aware of JKR's BS.

But in general, I'm starting to hate this whole trend of whenever a creator gets into controversy or is revealed to be a POS there is some people coming out of the woodwork to say "X was never good!" or "Can we all agree that X was bad?"

It's just annoying and performative at best, like they wanna be those annoying, cool kid hipsters who wants to hate on the popular thing using the discourse/drama as an excuse to justify their hatred now that it's morally correct to hate it now.

Posting since this is a response to a previous problem.

[safesoundxswift]

all these arguments about the new harry potter casting but all i can think is that every person involved in the series has willingly signed up to work with such an outspoken transphobe

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

spop fans criticize authors like j.k rowling for declaring characters' sexualities offscreen, instead of showing it onscreen. but then they praise the crew-ra for lgbt and poc representation when more than half of those things were "confirmed" offscreen.

[crazycatsiren]

Don't even bother following me if you post Harry Potter content on your blog. You'll just be blocked.

[neonebula]

And then you decided to use your mega platform voice to spew hatred against other humans.

Goodreads should remove her quote and replace it with someone who isn’t actively harming the trans community.

🏳️‍⚧️