#trans elements of harry potter

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

There are a huge number of gender-crossing elements in the Harry Potter books!

Honestly, not to beat a dead horse here but it’s utterly WILD that JK Rowling, head British TERF managed to put into her fictional world that she didn’t want to have any trans-ness or gender barrier crossing within elements including:

A gender-neutral school uniform worn by all students

Gender-neutral clothing that is worn by all adults, including males wearing bright, traditionally feminine colours and fabrics like lace, satin, silk, with nobody finding this strange or unusual

The one sport participated in at Hogwarts and the largest sport in wizarding society is co-ed, with male and female players on the same team both at school and professional level, not divided into men’s and women’s leagues

Changing rooms are co-ed, with the implication at multiple points that cis boys and girls change clothes and shower communally in front of each other, with no suggestion that there are cubicles or other such barriers

The large, bearded hero Hagrid has many traditionally feminine accoutrements, likes the colour pink, and refers to themself with she/her pronouns on multiple occasions

The first book includes a pivotal scene where cis boys have to go into the girls’ bathroom in order to rescue a girl and the girl is very thankful that they went in to save her. Teachers witness this and do not punish or admonish the boys for entering the girls’ bathroom.

The second book includes many pivotal scenes where cis boys are in the girls’ bathroom. They are invited in by a girl who is perfectly comfortable with them being there. If they had not entered the girls’ bathroom they would not have been able to participate in multiple major plot points, and a female student would have died because they had not been there to save her.

A potion exists by which people can transform their whole bodies into other people - which can be used to change gender, which is demonstrated on multiple occasions

Certain people exist who can transform their bodies into other forms without the aid of potions

The most famous band in the wizarding world is The Weird Sisters, a group made up of males only who are quite comfortable using a feminine name for their group. Nobody finds it unusual or remark-worthy that none of the Weird Sisters are women.

One male and one female Prefect are chosen from each year group and they have their own special bathroom. This bathroom is co-ed and the bathing facility is one communal tub, with no indication that there are also separate bathing or showering facilities, separating screens or anything for privacy or modesty

Male characters frequently have long flowing hair which is typically associated with female characters in children’s fiction

It is visibly hard to tell the gender of non-human magical beings, which is described on several occasions

Characters who are most stereotypically and self-assuredly masculine or feminine (the Dursleys, Cormac McLaggen, Lavender Brown) are looked down upon and are figures of embarrassment and fun for the heroes of the story.

In isolation any of these elements could be taken as a hint that the author was quite open-minded or did not care so much about traditional views of gender, normality and/or propriety. The fact that Rowling was able to write in all of these elements when she didn’t need to and could quite easily have chosen to not include them, if she firmly wanted to depict a world with strict gender boundaries, is thus either a sign of exceptionally poor writing, blinkers on as to what kind of society she was actually describing as opposed to what she intended to portray, or a suggestion that in actuality the lady doth protest too much - and that much of her latest rants and ramblings about trans people and the threat they pose are more stubbornness at being challenged and/or trying to stay in with her ‘new friends’ rather than views she has consistently held all through her life.

How does it all possibly add up, otherwise?

[foone]

Full disclosure ahead of time: I'm trans, and not a fan of Harry Potter, as you might guess. However...

My favorite thing about the writing of Harry Potter is how the first book is set several years earlier for no reason. It's set in 1991 and came out in 1997

Then because of how the books came out over many year and each book is a year later in the story, the last book ends up being set in 1997 and published in 2007, a full decade later.

This would be an interesting writing exercise if it was at all used by J. K. Rowling, but it's not. This very specific dating of the books, and increasing dated setting is just there so that Rowling can make repeated anachronistic errors because she forgot her characters aren't living in the modern day.

There is no upside to definitively setting Harry Potter in the near past: nothing comes of it in a way that'd be impossible to do if the books were set in a vague present. All setting them in the past does is let Rowling repeatedly make mistake, like having Dudley get a Playstation for his birthday.

In the 1997 she wrote that in? Perfectly reasonable present for a kid! In the summer of 1994 this scene is set it? Fucking impossible. The PS1 wouldn't be out in Japan until that December, and wouldn't be released in Europe until the next year, after his NEXT birthday.

And it's like... This is just the most well known of the anachronisms. There's an endless parade of them solely because she decided to set the books in specific years, a choice which gained her NOTHING! This doesn't happen because the final battle needs to happen at the millennium for prophecy reasons, or because she needs her characters to meet up with real life people who were dead or otherwise unavailable by the time the books were written, it's just some story element she picked and then never for one second thought about the consequences.

(Another retroactively funny mistake caused by this is that she ends up having a character inadvertently misgender Margaret Thatcher of all people, because they call the previous prime minister "he", and the because the scene is set in 1996, the prime minister is John Major, so the previous one should be Thatcher, but she's clearly thinking the current PM would be Tony Blair, and the previous one would be John Major)

I dunno. It feels like there's something meaningful in how J. K. Rowling made a clearly bad decision once and hasn't thought about any of the negative effects of her decision, standing by and doubling down on it, no matter how much it doesn't help her or anyone. It just seems like this might be a metaphor for something.

But who can really say?

(that last line assumes you're using dark mode)

[shy-sapphic-ace]

List of queer books I read, loved & recommend!

(There isn't any particular order, I wrote these as I remembered them)

Master Of One - Jaida Jones & Dani Bennett (mlm, fantasy, very cool worldbuilding and magic system, funny, cool characters)

Legends & Lattes - Travis Baldree (wlw, fantasy, very soft & chill vibes)

The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon (wlw, high fantasy, cool worldbuilding, kinda reminds me of LOTR but with more dragons and feminism and lesbians)

Even Though I Knew The End - C.L. Polk (wlw, supernatural noir, cool 1930s detective story with angels & demons, I loved this one!)

The Love Interest - Cale Dietrich (mlm, science fiction, very cool concept)

The Darkest Part Of The Forest - Holly Black (side mlm, fantasy, cool fae lore)

The Weight Of The Stars - K. Ancrum (wlw, not quite science fiction but space stuff is involved, lovely and complex characters)

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe - Benjamin Alire Sáenz (mlm, fiction, very nice in general, there is also a sequel)

The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue - Mackenzi Lee (mlm, historical and vaguely fantasy, nice story but I preferred the sequel honestly)

The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy - Mackenzi Lee (wlw, the sequel to the one before, more fantasy elements than the first, asexual main character!!)

Gallant - V.E. Schwab (no romance, but in the background one of the characters(?) uses they/them pronouns, very cool dark fantasy vibe)

Stranger Than Fanfiction - Chris Colfer (gay main character, trans main character, coming-of-age, nice book)

Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda (yes it's the Love, Simon book, mlm, fiction, pretty nice)

They Both Die At The End - Adam Silvera (mlm, sci-fi ish but mostly fiction, cool ideas, but the ending is sad! Very amazing book though, I haven't read the prequel yet)

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo - Taylor Jenkins Reid (wlw, bi main character, historical fiction, cool story, just a neat book in general)

This Is How You Lose The Time War - Amal El-Mohtar & Max Gladstone (wlw, sci-fi, very cool time travel stuff!! and very beautiful, it felt like reading poetry most of the time)

One Last Stop - Casey McQuinston (wlw, background trans & pan & queer characters, sci-fi or fantasy idk, but time travel, I loooved this book, great)

The House In The Cerulean Sea - TJ Klune (mlm, fantasy, THIS BOOK oh my gosh you should read it!!, just cute and lovely and good)

Under The Whispering Door - TJ Klune (mlm, fantasy, this book is also sooo amazing, great character development and awesome relationships and stuff, it's been a while since I read it but it was so good)

In the Lives of Puppets - TJ Klune (mlm, ace main character!!, sci-fi, now THIS is found family, oughh feelings. argh, tj klune you’ve done it again, a human and his family of funky robots… I love them)

And They Lived... - Steven Salvatore (nblm, fiction, about gender identity and learning to love yourself, read it a while ago but it was very nice)

I Wish You All The Best - Mason Deaver (nblm, fiction, about finding your identity and people who care about you, very cute and sweet)

The Song Of Achilles - Madeleine Miller (mlm, historical, very good in general)

Carry On - Rainbow Rowell (mlm, background wlw in the third book, fantasy, it's a trilogy, basically Harry Potter if it was gay and also better)

Silver In The Wood - Emily Tesh (mlm, fantasy, very pretty, lots of fae stuff and lovely descriptions, it has a really good sequel too)

Pretty much anything by Alice Oseman (all cute and lovely and great, though I've only read Radio Silence so far I hear only good things, Solitaire is on my to-read list)

I Kissed Shara Wheeler - Casey McQuinston (wlw, fiction, it's been a while but I liked this book)

The Falling In Love Montage - Ciara Smyth (wlw, fiction, this book was so cute and funny and deeply emotional it made me Feel way too many things, I'd definitely recommend it)

What Big Teeth - Rose Szabo (a bit of queerness all around, fantasy, werewolves and monsters, this one was pretty cool!, lots of original ideas for the world/character building)

His Quiet Agent - Ada Maria Soto (mlm, asexual, fiction, about like spies but this book was so gentle and sweet I wanted to cry in the best way possible)

Some By Virtue Fall - Alexandra Rowland (wlw, historical fiction(?), theatre drama!! rival romance!! duels!!, a very good read in general)

Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend - Emma R. Alban (wlw, historical fiction, I’m not usually one for regency romances, but I really liked this!!, very cute and lots of drama, and there’s a sequel coming out soon!)

[cephalopod-celabrator]

Hey! Are you a Harry Potter fan feeling disappointed and betrayed? Do you want a piece of well-written fantasy media that doesn't have a transphobic author? Then boy howdy have I got reccomendations for you 1) Discworld. Old fantasy series by Terry Pratchett, who co-wrote Good Omens. It's very funny but also really well written. It started as just a parody of Conan The Barbarian-style sword and sorcery fantasy but it has some genuinely fascinating worldbuilding and every book is a mix of silliness, fascinating fantasy ideas horrifying concepts, insights into the very core of what it means to be human, and really dumb puns. The representation is remarkably good considering they were written decades ago by an old cishet white british man. It has canonically trans characters, although they don't use those labels, and the author is dead so he can't disappoint you by suddenly revealing he's a far-right dipshit. 2) The Eruvia books. A pair of trilogies written by Melissa Caruso about a fantasy world much of which is modeled after rennaissance Italy, particularly Venice. There is a scene which contains three canonically gay mages each individually capable of destroying armies need I say more. Some truly amazing magic systems and plot twists and worldbuilding. The Swords and Fire series takes place first chronologically and is a better introduction to the magic system, but I prefer the Rooks and Ruin trilogy although both are amazing. Contains a multitude of queer identities, including one canonically trans character, three characters with they/them pronouns, and several characters that don't fit in a gender binary. 3) The Aurora webcomic. If any of you know of the Overly Sarcastic Productions youtube series, this comic is written and drawn by Red. Very pretty art, phenomonal characters, coolass magic system. Also if you're tired of stories always focusing on romance read this because like to this day there's only like the implied beginning of one romance arc in the entire thing. It isn't finished yet though. It's got dragons, gods, primordial elemental entities, and lil guys who need therapy. Also has a canonically trans male character. And it's a webcomic, so it's absolutely free! Just enter "aurora webcomic" into a browser and you can find it. All of these are, in my opinion, better written than Harry Potter but most certainly contain better queer representation and have authors with less expressed transphobia.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

(CW: J.K. Rowling)

AITA if I don't tell a trans friend about Rowling being a TERF?

I (25, cis) have a friend (27, mtf) that is part of a group of friends that get together to play ttrpg and we also roleplay via text. We'll call her Natasha.

Natasha is our current GM and she announced that the next campaign she will master for us will have a Harry Potter theme. This was met with much enthusiasm from almost the entire group.

I said that I wouldn't be participating but didn't say why (I don't enjoy JKR's work and I don't want to consume it or anything related to it).

I don't know if Natasha or anyone in the group knows about JKR being a terf. I don't think they do because Natasha is trans and no one in the group is a terf, so if they are ok with the Harry Potter idea, I assume it's because they don't know, right?

I decided not to tell them that JKR is a terf because I didn't think it would matter too much? They would just be 5 people playing and also Natasha does witchcraft irl and said that it will have a lot of elements not from the Harry Potter world but related to witchcraft and occultism in real life.

But now they are talking about streaming the campaign (something we have never done before) and dressing up for it.

Should I tell them about the Rowling being a terf thing? WIBTA if I didn't?

What are these acronyms?

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Hello, all!

We find ourselves at a funny little crossroads today. There is officially an HBO television adaptation of Harry Potter in the works, one with a clearly stated commitment to open casting that could create an inroad to character representations aligning with a great many fans' longtime hopes and dreams for Harry and Hermione especially. Ten years ago, this would have been everything we could have ever hoped for in this fandom. Today, news of this new television show cannot bring joy.

The movie adaptation has brought many book fans a great deal of frustration over the years (hence the creation of this blog); while being greatly beloved by an entire generation, it simultaneously dropped the ball in many areas focusing on characterization and worldbuilding. And yet the faces of that film franchise - the actors of the main trio especially - have been invaluable voices in the public struggle to push back the flood of anti-trans rhetoric free flowing from JK Rowling's social media accounts.

On the other hand, we finally have a long-form adaptation of the series on the horizon, but it comes less than fifteen years after the end of the original movie series and therefore inevitably falls into the exhausting position of being yet another franchise remade too soon. And most importantly, of course, the main and inescapable effect of its creation will be lining the pockets of a woman who has been actively and enthusiastically supporting bigotry against women - both trans and cis - in society and in politics.

There have been rumors that Warner Brothers is trying to buy the rights to the entirety of Harry Potter from JK Rowling, and if true, it has to be admitted - ironically, given the nature of this blog - that I hope they succeed. If the choice is between lack of artistic fulfillment in the portrayal of a fictional world or real-life financial support of a woman actively making the world a more dangerous place for vulnerable populations, there is only one choice to support.

A few years ago, I started writing a detailed post that was a general post-mortem on our collective fanship of JK Rowling, and never completed it due to general feelings of exhaustion, disgust, and feelings that it was redundant. But briefly:

Many years ago, JK Rowling made a post on her personal website about her portrayal of Aunt Marge's bulldogs. She was dissatisfied with how she had written them, because she hadn't known a lot about bulldogs at the time and hadn't taken the care to portray them in a way that did them any justice. While she meant no harm, she's since learned better and wishes, in retrospect, that she had portrayed them differently.

When I think about JK Rowling, I think about that post a lot.

Even before her newest and most outspoken TERF era, even prior to all of the issues involved in the Fantastic Beasts spinoff series, JK Rowling wrote a beloved children's series that was seen as highly progressive upon publication but also contained a number of elements that have aged, shall we say, very poorly. Some of these were markers of the time when Harry Potter was originally written - many things from the 90's have aged badly - and some of them are down to the personal ignorance of the author, whether or not you assume that ignorance came hand-in-hand with malicious intent.

She could have spoken out about this if she wished - you know, like she did with the fucking bulldogs, to say that she had no ill-intent at the time but that would write these elements differently today if she had the chance - but as far as I'm aware, she has not. In fact, despite having endless wealth and resources at her disposal now, as opposed to the original start of her writing journey as a single mother scribbling ideas on cafe napkins, her portrayal of delicate issues of things like race, gender, and sexuality in her writing has only gotten worse.

The 'JK Rowling was always a secret conservative' rhetoric is strong, especially on Tumblr, and while I understand it, I genuinely think that it is misguided. The woman spent most of her life voting in favor of and speaking out for leftist and progressive politics. We (progressives) are not immune from propaganda, radicalization, or being raging fucking bigots. However she votes now, whatever idiots she is friends with now, the call very much started from inside the house on this one.

So, to circle back to the original point of this post:

This new HBO television series, in a best-case scenario, could take all of the tone-deaf sociopolitical issues with the original novels and fix them. It could take all of the creative issues with the movie franchise and fix those too. It could give us a diverse cast and tell an emotional story that does credit to what so many people held dear about the book series while growing up.

(I doubt it will, but it could.)

And yet this would still be a thing that on some level brought me no joy, because at the end of the day, it would also be putting pallets and pallets of cash into JK Rowling's pocket as she continues to dig her way down the conservative rabbit hole instead of fixing any of the mistakes of her early writing career.

Gross.

xoxo

[catboybiologist]

it’s kinda funny that the harry potter fandom is how I realized I’m trans, because it’s where I was first confident enough to to tg tf rps lol

Fuckit I'm telling on myself lol

I don't read any HP fanfic anymore, but back in the Day when I would, the entire plot would feel hollow and empty if polyjuice potion or transfiguration wasn't like, the core plot element

but yeah I totally get this. I remember reading the "everyone polyjuices into Harry" scene in Deathly Hallows as a kid and getting this weird funny feeling of like "oh my god... there are girls.. that turned into Harry... who is a boy..... what if that could happen.... in reverse...."

But yeah I had the "stack of dominoes" type wtf moment on Harry Potter when I started rereading the story years later and got to Hermione's house elf stuff and I was like "wait is JKR really making a civil rights movement the butt of a joke" and then the entire illusion crumbles plot point by plot point

[hamliet]

hello hamliet, love your meta analysis and they always show me a different perspective. Would love to know your opinion on seperating the art from the artist, if it is possible and if so how to go about it?

A few principles:

Not everyone will reach the same conclusion about whether they are able to separate the artist and art, and that's okay. I can't listen to Michael Jackson. I know people who can. I do not judge them.

That said I guarantee you everyone does this separation for something, so don't throw stones.

Being able to separate it doesn't mean someone endorses an issue. I don't think people who listen to MJ are CSA apologists. Learn to separate what art resonates with people from their own personal morals.

Don't deny what the creator has done. I can't deny that JK Rowling is a toxic transphobe who seems dead set on destroying trans' peoples lives and I want her stopped. Or that Charles Dickens tried to have his wife locked up in an insane asylum to cover up his affair.

Don't fight against justice for the creator. Sorry, JK, but I hope Imane Khelif who is not even trans ends up taking you to the cleaners in court. I want her harmful rhetoric to be stopped. It'd be nice if she changed her mind and repented . Take your own advice JK about how remorse is the only way to put a torn soul back together, but it hurts terribly. But I'm not holding my breath and in the meantime transphobia needs to be stopped.

Competing needs are a thing. Sorry, I have never read a series that addresses losing a parent in the same way Harry Potter does. I have read other series' about this. I've never read one that resonates the same way. I love the series but I do acknowledge the author is actively harming people and make efforts to combat transphobia in my own life.

Be sensitive to the fact that people may feel differently. I'm not going to recommend Harry Potter to someone who is transgender or tell someone they absolutely should read it and must separate author from art. They don't have to. There are some things I can't separate.

Don't deny privilege playing a role in what you can separate and what you can't. It does, because we all have different lives and different triggers, and it's good to check privilege. But life is also really short. Live in the tension. Don't try to ignore it or deny it away.

Have those discussions that are uncomfortable.

No ethical consumption exists under capitalism. I've been mostly boycotting Nestle for... thirteen years now? But I don't think everyone who consumes Nestle is intending to say "oh well" to child slaves in Africa. These children matter just as much as trans children, don't they?

Learn everything about something and something about everything, to quote a professor I once had. Care about everything. Focus all your efforts on one or two causes. You can't save the world but you can help save something.

Acknowledge the reality that humans are contradictory. I think HP as a story has the opposite thematic message to a lot of her current rhetoric. Which isn’t to say it’s perfect.

Don’t fall prey to the stupidity of suddenly denying that art is good bc the author or singer is evil. Every time I see ppl trot out the Ursula Leguin quote on HP I lose brain cells because it is empathically clear that people taking that as some kind of prescient insight have never understood Leguin’s books nor HP nor the complexity and contradictoriness of humanity.

Which also isn’t to say it’s wrong to notice problematic elements in said works that may relate to the issue or may be unrelated. Do critique.

[fipindustries]

and while we are on the topic of dehumanizing, this reminds me of a shower thought i had the other day regarding harry potter.

yes, this is going to be yet another take about re-examining an element of that blasted series under a much more critical light now that i find the author to be a horrible person, but bear with me.

to my defense, i actually genuenly did thought this back when i was a kid reading these books, way before i knew anything about rowlings opinions on trans people, or indeed about trans people at all!

it always was a little weird to me those moments where dumbledore tries to stomp out of harry any inkling of empathy or mercy he might have towards voldemort.

i can think of three specific instances.

first instance is in book 6 when harry is feeling weary about the idea that he is predestined to kill voldemort because of a prophecy. dumbledore then exclaims something about how of course that harry has to kill voldemort, but not just because the prophecy says so, rather because of all the evil things he did that make him deserving of death. so harry thinks of all the crimes voldemort commited and he feels uplifted by what is descrived as "righteous anger"

the second instance is also in book 6, right after harry learns about the tragic story of voldemort's mom, where he actually feels kind of bad for her and asks why she had to die. to this dumbledore immediatly asks harry, almost incredulously "are you feeling pity for voldemort's mom?". to which harry instantly corrects himself and tries to spin it as somehow her fault for not using her magic to save herself and thus abandoning her baby.

then the third instance is near the end of the final book when they are at king's cross purgatory vision, where harry finds voldemort's mutilated soul, that looks like a wounded baby that was skinned alive and is desperatly crying. harry's first instinct is to want to help him but dumbledore steps in and is like "you should step away from that". when harry asks what is it dubledore is like "ignore the baby harry, he is beyond help". after a while, harry stops feeling sorry for the baby and he starts to find the baby's desperate cries of pain annoying.

so in here we see three instances where dumbledore's advice makes harry more callous towards voldemort.

and to be sure. voldemort is ontollogically evil. he is the devil. as evil as evil gets. kind of the whole point is that this is the uncomplicated fully evil villain against whom all scorn and harm and violence is morally justified.

not saying this is like the worst message ever. having absolute evil that has to be vanquished by any means and against whom is really not worth to waste time considering their humanity is like, normal everyday stuff. this is a children's story so is not aming for moral complexity here. but still, as a kid i was not used to seeing a child hero that was presented with a Hated Enemy that he was fully justified in killing no questions asked. even aang, who is told by every mentor he has to kill ozai, he at least struggles with the question. luke tries to redeem vader at every turn. frodo makes a genuine attempt at being nice to smeagol and lets saruman go after the take back the shire. superman never ever killed. and then comes harry, a child hero from a children's story and the message is "yeah some fuckers just need to fucking die, the end"

[figayda-rights]

Hey. I know you're probably getting a lot of hate for your mismag opinions, and I don't want to be one of those voices or be dismissive of your concerns. I'm Jewish and trans (though admittedly transmasc. I will say, that though JK's virulent transphobia has mostly been centered around victimizing trans men, it's important to remember that the entire community is affected. Her claims that transmasc folks are just confused little girls is dehumanizing and patronizing. We should stand with our trans sisters who are being endangered first and foremost, but also acknowledge that there is no part of the community that is unhurt by her bigotry.) Anyways, that said... I personally disagree with your mismag takes. I think you're well within your right not to support a series platforming the Terf book, and I do agree with many of your takes. But one of the distinctions I don't see a lot of people making is the difference between criticizing the Harry Potter series and criticizing JK Rowling herself. I'm not advocating for the Harry Potter books, or claiming death of the author. Those books are filled with prejudice.

But, though JK has made her current platform off of horrible transphobia, the books themselves weren't as preoccupied with trans people as she's become. Yes, there are definite transphobic elements. But to me, the biggest glaring issues of the book come from the racism and the worldbuilding (specifically the "fantasy racism" of muggles/mud bloods and all that shoddy allegory entails) --- both aspects that are directly critiqued and centered in mismag.

Saying that Mismag isn't a satire because it doesn't center a takedown of the transphobia of Jk Rowling is a misunderstanding of how it functions as a satire. Not criticizing JK (aside from Fuck Terfs) so much as criticizing the book and the world itself. I think there are issues with it, no doubt! And I certainly wish a transfemme individual had been given a seat at the table, not as a token, but because their insight into the world would add an extra dimension to the intended criticism.

But I also think that saying it doesn't qualify as a Parody is sorta... ignoring the racial components. It's unfair to Aabria and unfair to the show as a whole.

thanks for your opinion. I don't agree that transphobia (transmisogyny specifically) isn't baked into every aspect of her books.

Remember Pansy Parkinson? Remember how she was described as pig faced, square jawed, short haired and mannish? Remember how she was a villain who did awful things and ultimately aided the in world version of "fantasy Nazis"?

Remember umbridge? Another woman characterized as wide, mannish, square jawed and shouldered, someone who would LITERALLY transform to spy on people, get into kids bedrooms, "invade spaces".

Remember the staircases to the dorm rooms? The ones that wouldn't let boys into the girls rooms but would let girls into the boys rooms? This isn't even all of it.

I'm absolutely in no way saying the books and Rowling currently aren't FILLED with racism. I am indigenous, her use of "spirit animals" as patronuses is despicable. Rowling isn't currently spending thousands of dollars pushing laws against black, Asian, or indigenous people though. She IS currently funding politicians who are pushing holocaust denial AND spending direct money advocating for laws targeted at specifically trans women.

It is irresponsible and incredibly tone deaf to release a season based on her books when violence and trans people, trans women specifically, is at an all time high.

[bowquette-of-roses]

୨୧ Welcome To My Blog ୨୧

You can call me Rose.

The main purpose of this blog is to explore my identity with femininity as a woman who is still learning what exactly it means to be a girl (scroll down to my story at the end of this post if you want to hear me expand on that more). Here I will mainly reblog posts on femininity, books, music and my general interests, there will also be quite a lot of personal posting on my thoughts and journeys with womanhood.

୨୧ A little about me ୨୧

Music I like (order is intended):

⋆ Noah Kahan

⋆ Novo Amor

⋆ Daughter

⋆ Molchat Doma

⋆ The Cranberries

⋆ Car Seat Headrest

⋆ Evanescence

⋆ Slowdive

Movies I like (order not intended)

⋆ Pride and Prejudice

⋆ Coraline

⋆ Dead Poets Society

⋆ Interview with the Vampire

⋆ The Sound of Music

⋆ Harry Potter

⋆ Fantastic Mr Fox

Literature I like (order not intended)

⋆ Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austin

⋆ Hamlet - William Shakespeare

⋆ Animal Farm - George Orwell

⋆ The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Arthur Conan Doyle

⋆ The short stories of H.P. Lovecraft

୨୧ Random Niche Interests ୨୧

⋆ Brutalist Architecture

⋆ Poetry

⋆ Unicorn mythology

⋆ Writing

⋆ The human psych

⋆ Medieval tapestries

୨୧ My Story ୨୧

I am unfortunately a victim of severe abuse from birth, there was never really any point in my life that I was well or safe before I met my amazing partner. This affected my relationship with myself and my femininity horribly, I never had a chance to experience girlhood because I was too busy surviving my everyday. And to push me even further from it, in the last half of 2021 up until the beginning month of 2024 I was under the disillusionment that I was a transgender male. I have since healed from that rather intense episode and am trying to understand myself and my innate feminine nature despite it all. The episode of my life in which I thought I was trans has unfortunately made my journey more difficult I spent almost 3 years training myself on how to act a man, doing away with all girly elements about myself, casting aside what little I had, not realising my mistake. I was trying desperately to understand it all but ended up running as far as possible from the truth. I hope with time to grow into myself as a woman change what I can, accept and adapt to what I cannot. I am slowly seeing the girl I've always kept hidden blossom in me and it is a glorious sight to be sure.

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

[Rowling's] attacks on trans rights activists are actually more revealing of her views of mentally ill people than anything else. In her view, she can have “compassion” for mentally ill people— as long as they don’t “overstep the boundaries delineated by ‘reality’”. That medical bodies no longer treat being trans as a mental illness means, to her, that mental illness is being encouraged rather than treated — or cured. It’s why she believes there’s a vast, global conspiracy of medical malpractice being foisted on the public: the notion that “men can become women” (in the language of gender critical feminists) is so obviously ludicrous to people who are not mentally ill that only sinister powers can account for its uptake by the public and healthcare professions. Her descent into conspiracy theory is her paranoid, narcissistic protest against a wider reality she can’t comprehend.  Her contention is not really about “do trans people exist?”, because clearly even she acknowledges that they do. Her dispute (what she calls “the debate”) is more “is being trans not a pathology?” (She mainly tries to avoid openly framing it in those terms, however, because she still has enough self awareness to know that that would force her to out herself as a full on conspiracy theorist to the public). It’s why she advocates against trans inclusion in conversion therapy bans and why she believes her attacks on the medical profession are righteous.  “Disease” is often a secularized version of the religious concept of “evil”. She truly believes she’s on a holy crusade to drive evil out of society — by fighting for trans people to stay marginalized.

An astute obseravtion from this reddit thread (Jul. 2024) discussing the author of Harry Potter's latest attempts to bully trans celebrities and members of the public.

This isn't a million miles away from what motivated Anita Bryant and I hope that at some point some journalist or researcher decides to take a deeper dive into the links between religious belief and the trans exclusionary worldview. It's a lesser-discussed element of Rowling's bigotry that she is, in fact, contrary to her framing of herself as an average British woman in terms of her general beliefs and tastes, comparatively religious for a British Christian, which unsurprisingly is a quiet motivator behind the behaviours and beliefs she chooses to champion - and those on which, for a supposed women's rights activist, she is strikingly silent.

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

Does liking a series now considered "problematic" count? Yes, I'm referring to "Harry Potter"/the Wizarding World.

Is liking Harry Potter considered problematic behavior, you mean? Personally, I consider it so if the person in question...

• Financially supports the Harry Potter franchise, thereby putting money directly into J.K. Rowling's pockets.

• Defends J.K. Rowling.

• Is a radfem/TERF or some other flavor of right-wing reactionary. Yes, radfems are right-wing reactionaries.

• Doesn't acknowledge the series' harmful elements, such as the racism, antisemitism, transphobia (e.g., Rita Skeeter and her "mannish" features), the fat-shaming, and so on.

If they're doing none of the above, then I'm cool with them. A transgender person writing, say, trans!Harry fics is most likely not a J.K. Rowling supporter.

[doingproblematicmedia]

I touched real grass today* and am still annoyed about this, so here we go:

We cannot pretend Hogwarts Legacy doesn’t exist.

I have seen so many posts saying that “if you talk about this, you cannot be a real ally. Playing and talking about this game will do real harm to real people. Do not support Hogwarts Legacy.”

And why does this make me angry? Because it’s reductive and doesn’t acknowledge the real world we live in.

Let’s start with the basics: paying for the game financially supports WB and JKR. A boycott aims to harm someone financially, and I believe that not paying for this game is a good goal, with some real measurable results. 

But I’ve seen as many posts condemning someone who would pirate the game. Pirating, which WB Media will count as a loss, doesn’t put money in JKR’s pocket, and therefore accomplishes the goal of a boycott: to hurt someone financially.

What is the goal of convincing people not to pirate the game? To make sure that people don’t play it? To make sure that people don’t talk about it?

I cannot condone this. Because Hogwarts Legacy will not go away, and it is important to talk about it.

Hogwarts Legacy is going to be one of the biggest games of the year, if not the biggest. Presales are through the roof. Millions of people are going to be playing this thing. It is not a commercial failure. It is not going to go away.

By silencing talk about Hogwarts legacy, we are silencing ourselves.

It is important to have a voice in this conversation. By trying to silence all talk about this game, we are shutting down critical discourse. Can a person effectively criticize a piece of media without engaging with it? Because a person plays this game, does that mean they are disqualified from bringing meaningful critical dialogue to the table?

If meaningful critique about this game is not offered, how can we expect to reach people? How can someone expand their thinking if the tools to expand it are not there?

There is so much talk about how engaging with Hogwarts Legacy will bring harm to real people. It is important to think about how our actions can do harm.

But critical engagement is not harmful.

And right now, the gaming press is not providing it.

As I write this (Feb 7 2023), the major outlets (at least the ones willing to touch it) have dropped their reviews. They almost all add some sort of sidebar disclaimer: We do not support JKR’s views on trans people. We support human rights and support people speaking with their wallets. Etc. 

Cool, ok. Are they talking about the plot of the game? The thing that Jews are worried is going to be “Blood Libel Simulator 2023″? No they are not. How are we Jews going to push back on antisemitic content in this game if we don’t even know what’s in it? We need to be able to address what this game is going to be implying about us. Antisemitism is on the rise globally. I am scared for my Jewish family. I had to listen to a Gentile relative tell me over Christmas that Kanye was a ‘genius’. 

Again, millions of people are going to be playing this. Not talking about any antisemitic tropes in it is only going to help them go unchallenged.

Critical works on Harry Potter are valuable. 

Over the past few years, there has been an exceptional body of work put out that returns to Harry Potter. Takes a look at the books with a new eye, an eye that is more attuned to the casual cruelty JKR wields. Examines elements that we brushed over as children. Contextualizes Harry Potter in its British Neoliberal context, and points out the moral failings of JKR’s allegories. Realizes how Harry Potter does not call for true revolution, but merely a comfortable status quo.

Critical works like these have helped so many reevaluate Harry Potter with a more mature view. By looking at JKR’s output, we are better able to understand her current bigotry and call her on her views. Trans analyses of the books have highlighted transphobic material that went unremarked upon in the 2000s.

Why stop here?

Is it because talking about the game supports JKR? Or is it because people are condemning anyone who even thinks about talking about the game?

I know I’ve seen a million posts on my dash along these lines. “I don’t trust you if you play this game. I will block you if you talk about this game. You are not an ally if you talk about this game.”

And this, this makes me angry.

Because I know you’re trying to reach people who will pay for the game without thinking about who that money goes to. People who will not acknowledge the real terror JKR is inflicting on trans people. People who will say “let me enjoy the thing.”

But you’re not just reaching them. You’re also saying, in effect, “any talk about this game will get you shunned, blacklisted, harassed. Engaging with this game means that you are not a good person. Good people don’t talk about Harry Potter anymore.”

Aren’t we always banging on against online purity culture? Saying that media consumption is not activism, and that you don’t get to be a good person just by consuming the “right” media? Because right now, you’re saying the opposite. That media consumption is activism. That you are a good person because you don’t consume the bad media. That any talk about this does real harm to people.

And to be clear, I’m not talking about personal blocklists. Curating your online space and blocking stuff that you don’t want to see is not the problem here. The problem is the rather explicit statement that anyone who talks about Hogwarts Legacy is immoral. 

And as a media critic, and a Jewish queer, I cannot accept this.

We must talk about the things that hurt us. We must continue pushing back against the bigotry of the Wizarding World. We must have a voice at the table, because no one is going to do it for us. Not the gaming press, not the suits at WB, and certainly not the world that produced millions of preorders for this game.

Once again, we cannot pretend Hogwarts Legacy doesn’t exist. The real question is: how will we talk about it? 

Because if we’re not talking about it, someone else will be. 

*A feat in a New England winter. Said grass was in a greenhouse.

[soup-mother]

thinking about how the first person i ever dated (non-binary and we were both in highschool) jokingly pretending to strangle me for not liking harry potter because i said it seemed like there were antisemitic and transmisogynistic (didn't know that word then obviously) elements. I'm 90% sure i was out to them as trans too (and if I wasn't it didn't help).

like that's really embarrassing for them huh? pretend to strangle the trans girl for not liking jk rowling of all people.

obviously hope they're chill and fine now but part of me does hope they remember that and feel deeply embarrassed about it

[supersoakerfullofblood]

Great Books About Gender Identity

Seeing some posts about how new-adult romance novels popularized by BookTok don't show genuine queer experience and largely tokenize queer characters. And look, the prose of these books is ass too. One of my reading interests is how themes of gender/masculinity/femininity interact with other elements in a novel, and with the culture from which the novel was written. I've read a lot of great books on the topic!

As a disclaimer, most of these books don't have explicit queer representation. I read a lot of old books where that wasn't a thing you could openly write about, but you could write about cultural perceptions of masculinity/femininity (a lotta people still didn't like this, but like, you usually weren't stoned for it), which is where modern queer theory and identity comes from! So if you want to feel understood by a novel, here are my book recs on gender, in no particular order:

The Earthsea series by Ursula K. Le Guin: a series of children's fantasy novels that build the foundation for modern children's and YA fantasy (Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, some Neil Gaiman, Brandon Sanderson, etc.). Men and women's roles in society and relations with magic are a major theme in the series, and while no character is queer (though there's a reference late in the series about witches living together), characters are always bound or freed by the gender they express. Also, all the characters are black, which was unheard of at the time of the first book's publication (1968) and is frankly still unheard of today. And it's just a fun read!

The work of Virginia Woolf: My favorite author and one of the largest players in what we today call gender studies. Highly recommend Orlando, where the titular character changes inexplicably from a man to a woman halfway through the novel (it's tempting to call them "the first trans character," but the label feels disingenuous. Transsexuality as we know it didn't exist then, and Orlando didn't choose or want to switch genders. It just happened to them); A Room of One's Own, Woolf's essay on life as a woman author; and The Waves, a book less about gender identity and more about wholistic identity.

The work of Kate Chopin: Chopin is a huge player in starting the feminist literary movement of the 20th century, influencing the work of many authors on this list. If you can stomach Victorian prose, Chopin is for you!

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath: Plath's novel is written from an intimately feminine perspective and wrestles with questions of mental illness from such a perspective. A must-read.

The work of Oscar Wilde: Thrown in jail for a bit for likely being at least a little gay, Wilde's writing frequently riffs on and critiques gendered social customs. Highly recommend The Importance of Being Earnest, Lady Windermere's Fan, and definitely other stuff of his I haven't read yet.

The work of Madeline Miller: I think Circe is the only "BookTok book" I've read that I thought was good, and boy is it fantastic. Its ideas of gender feel a bit cliche or elementary at times (Circe sometimes reads like an "empowered girlboss" stereotype), but how it plays with this identity at the same time it plays with Circe's identity in her family and pantheon make this book special. And Miller really is a delightful prose stylist. Galatea is also pretty good, and I haven't read Song of Achilles yet.

The Hours by Michael Cunningham: based on Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, Cunningham reprises Woolf's themes for a book set in the 90s! Great read, and another master of the craft.

The poetry of Sappho: The popular conception of Sappho is that she's this girlboss prodigal lesbian in a patriarchal society, which isn't true. There's definitely some truth there, but it's much more nuanced, and certainly Sappho couldn't conceive of the labels we put on her today and those labels' connotations. In any case, her poetry is some of the first, if not the first, love poetry from a feminine perspective.

Any piece of literature about slavery/colonialism written by a woman: This is a broad category, but the intersection of femininity and race is a broad topic which many writers fall into. You really can't go wrong here. My recs are Toni Morrison, Jean Rhys, Zora Neale Hurston, Oroonoko by Aphra Bein, and Jean Toomer. I still need to read Gwendolyn Brooks, Octavia Butler, and Alice Walker.

The work of Shakespeare: You can't go wrong here. Obviously not explicitly queer, but many of his plays deal with cultural gender perceptions and, of course, crossdressing! Twelfth Night is probably his strongest play on this front, but The Winter's Tale and Measure for Measure are both great here, and most of his plays have at least a little commentary on the gender front.

Leave other recs in the comments/rts! :)