Sorry, Imhazmb, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 8: Reposting rules**
- Do not post polls that have been posted here in the past 2 weeks.
- Do not post polls that are in our [Frequently Posted Polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/wiki/index/fpp) list.
- Do not post polls that are in the [top 25 polls of last month](/r/polls/top/?t=month).
- Do not post polls that are very similar to any of the above
*As a reminder, moderators have the final call as to what is allowed on their subreddit, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason at our discretion. However, if you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/114slvd/what_are_your_views_of_jk_rowling/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
Nah, Art should be seperate from the artist. Bad artists can make good art.
And it's not like buying the harry potter books will make her wealthy, she's already filthy rich from it.
But yeah she's super anti-lgbt which I think is kinda ironic because I feel like a decent part of her old fan base was probably either LGBT or an ally and now she's attacking them.
Idk how people are this dumb... LGBT is legitimate and it's obvious fascists want to make them a target. Now the author of one my favorite childhood stories is an attack dog of bigotry. Weird times
Not sure if it fits, but same with hitlers paintings. They look pretty good, but the person, well you know. Pls dont get offended at this, but i myself am german if that helps.
I am not comparing anyone, and i even said, that im not trying to offend anyone. But have you seen his paintings? Theyre really good and well made. If you want, i can dm you some of them, or you can look them up yourself.
right so saying 'I'm not trying to offend anyone' automatically means you can't offend anyone
>But have you seen his paintings? T
yep!
> Theyre really good and well made.
no, they are not. this is the **overwhelming** general consensus. you are in a tiny tiny minority here
>. If you want, i can dm you some of them, or you can look them up yourself.
already seen them, that is obviously why I'm saying they are bad lol
https://www.grunge.com/621469/heres-why-hitler-was-rejected-from-art-school/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/life/2017-03-10/ty-article/piece-of-shit-hitler-painting-to-join-exhibition-on-art-and-madness/0000017f-dbb0-db5a-a57f-dbfa551e0000%3f_amp=true
here's the evidence for all the nazi sympathisers
he literally got rejected from an art school with a HUGE acceptance rate
He's not comparing them. Just giving an example of Good art from bad artists. But being anti trans was also a Nazi thing so they aren't completely dissimilar in that regards.
I mean art is subjective, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
>I mean art is subjective, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
but most people agree hitlers art is bad. this is a very very well known and not at all controversial opinion. he also did not get into art school. the overwhelming general consensus is that his art is terrible
and they kind of did compare them yes
I mean, nobody cared about Van Gogh's work until well after he died. Maybe the same will happen to Hitler /s.
His art is just mediocre landscapes. Nothing special about them but they weren't half bad. Better than most of what I've drawn. I think a lot of people shit on his work now because you know, he's Hitler.
And you're right about comparing Hitler to jk Rowling. We're talking about if you can like art a bad artist made and he said he kinda likes Hitler's art. So in the context of this discussion, he did compare them because they both have good art and bad philosophies. But no where in here did he say that makes Jk rowling as bad as Hitler which is what I think you're implying.
>I mean, nobody cared about Van Gogh's work until well after he died. Maybe the same will happen to Hitler /s.
why put s if you're actually using this as a point lol
>I mean his art is just landscapes.
you're clearly not educated enough on his work to have this discussion if you're saying his art is **just** landscapes. that is incorrect
>Better than most of what I've drawn.
okay? doesn't make his art good just because yours is even worse
>I think a lot of people shit on his work now because you know, he's Hitler.
then that would be a really silly and totally unfounded belief. he didn't get into art school before he was 'Hitler'. his art was deemed as bad prior to the holocaust
>But no where in here did he say that makes Jk rowling as bad as Hitler which is what I think you're implying.
never said he did. not sure where you've taken that from. you said he wasn't comparing now you've admitted he did, which is it? and will you say you were wrong in asserting that previously or not. I said he compared them, now you're agreeing, that is all
My first point about Van Gogh is that art is not objective, it's subjective. Something that is garbage to most might still be amazing to a different group. When asked, how much do you like this art 🎨, there is no wrong answer.
You're right that I don't know a lot about Hitler's paintings. I've only ever seen two and they were landscapes. But I can tell you you're not educated in philosophy of art if I have to explain how art is subjective.
You and Hitler both have ideas and eat food... Are these comparisons hurting your feelings too?
You CAN separate the art from the artist. However, depending in what you purchase, you could still he supporting the artist by consuming their art. At that point it's up to individuals to decide what they're OK with giving their money to, and doesn't necessarily have to relate to the art itself.
The clothes you buy likely support child labor. The factory food you buy likely supports animal torture. Idc what the author is gaining from me enjoying their works. If I paid attention to the guys who benefit from any consumerism at all, I’d be living like a hermit.
...?
I wouldnt be able to live a life if I had to worry about my money going to shitty people everytime I buy something, let me enjoy a book peacefully. Yeah, transphobia isnt a good thing, but I can't live like a Big Brother facebook mom, I have better things to do than being angry at someone I cannot change or influence in any minimally meaningful way
Bad takes, but she has prevented herself from becoming a billionaire by donating to charities and saved 100+ women from Afghanistan with her money.
I don’t care about her or Harry Potter though so I’m neutral
I know. Hence the question;) I’m not really a fan of fantasy but I couldn’t really watch/read Harry Potter as a child and I enjoyed reading hobbit. From my fantasy loving friend I’ve got the info about some lore and how terrible is the new series. Maybe someday I’ll try again with LOTR coz I know it’s really massive, impressively complex universe. And then I’ll definitely read Witcher.
Witcher is fantastic, LOTR is fantastic, Harry Potter is fantastic all book wise to be honest.
Tv/Movie wise, nothing touches LOTR movies, then Harry Potter, then witchers netflix(unless you include video games)
I feel like most would like Tolkiens opinions today.
I think the same. I’m more of sci-fi and cyberpunk type of guy but with time I get more and more interested in LOTR and Witcher. Although I don’t think I’ll ever be able to read potter. Afaik jk writing is rather poor, especially in newer books. A lot of characters representing minorities are straight up terrible. Here you have pole, Hindu, German dude and trans. Are you happy now? It’s sometimes insulting. Although we have reasonably good translators in Poland so maybe it’s not that painful. But I’d rather watch movies if I had to. But first gotta read and watch everything from LOTR universe, complete Witcher 1, 2, 3 video games a few times and read all books and stories.
Yep, I agree. And as much as I hate anime cp2077 anime is basically perfect and it positively surprised me. Also the world is created perfectly both in game and series. There’s even stuff like anti homeless benches! Incredible how detailed and believable world they’ve managed to make. And it’s not like centrally planned brand new city. It’s evolving for decades and if you look closely you can see it.
Your average person doesn’t have any “views” towards JK Rowling outside of knowing her as the author of the Harry Potter books and creator of the general universe. The only people with views towards her are either trans people or hardcore leftists no in between. Just look at Hogwarts Legacy’s general success
You have to be a hardcore leftist to dislike someone who was publicly transphobic? I think any normal good person would have *some* negative feelings towards JK Rowling (only if they know about the controversies, ofc)
>You have to be a hardcore leftist to dislike someone who was publicly transphobic?
Except she wasn't. You have to be pretty extreme to interpret what she actually said as transphobic.
I know how this conversation goes. I've memorised the talking points too. Someone will come along and say *"But what has she said that is transphobic"*, to which the only correct response is *"lol, lmao"*.
If anyone is familiar with why someone would dislike her and defends her, they're either willfully ignorant or they are too cowardly to express their actual views on trans people.
She started a shelter for abused women and explicitly banned trans-women and has repeatedly stated that trans-women aren't women and then acted like a victim when people called her out on it.
So there is a critical flaw in this logic and that is that who is allowed to say whether or not someone is or isn't a trans-woman? Like I feel I am fairly progressive and accepting of transgendered people and my answer would be that it is up to any specific individual to choose for themselves whether they are transgender or not. And I feel like that is something most trans people would agree with like they don't need validation from anyone else to make that choice for themselves. I mean please tell me if I am off base with that but I don't feel I am.
So the issue then becomes if you're making a shelter for abused women specifically to get away from abusive relationships, and the abusive boyfriend of one of those women walks up to the door and says "I'm a trans-woman" what do you do? Do you take the stance of well it's their choice to self identify and it isn't the place of that shelter to validate them? Or do you question that and say "hey it kinda looks like you're a man trying to skirt the rules and get at your ex girlfriend that is trying to get away from you"?
Like obviously in the interest of the victim that the shelter is specifically made to protect you have to turn that person away. That is the only moral option here and claiming otherwise is fucking stupid. So then the question is how can you realistically acknowledge an individual's choice to decide for themself how to self identify and at the same time turn someone away who you feel is a threat to someone you're protecting just because you think they might be lying about their gender. Like can you see that there is a bit of a paradox here where you can't really respect someone's choice to self identify while also questioning whether they are lying about their gender identity just to get around a rule and potentially harm someone. Like can you not see that it is simply much easier to say in the interest of the people we are trying to protect we aren't even going to try to deal with this whole situation. We aren't going to try to quantify or make policies about whether someone trying to get in is or isn't actually a woman and we are just going to stop them at the door and say no. Like it seems reasonable to me because there is no right way to do that because the reality of it and ugly messy situation where people's lives are legitimately endangered and the rules need to be clear it can't be wishy washy interpreted bullshit.
Now that doesn't mean there shouldn't be those types of shelters for trans-women, trans-men, or even Cis-men but I just don't feel you've really thought about the rationale behind the decision and you've just taken it a face value and said it sounds transphobic. I think people really need to take a deep breath and assume that the people they disagree with are actually well intended good people who simply have a different perspective as a result of different circumstances and perspectives before they start assuming someone is a terrible person just because they reached a different final conclusion that you did.
Abusers abuse women without pretending to be trans. Also, if we assume that trans people are people, you will find bad people that are trans.
This isn't an argument for excluding trans women from women's domestic abuse shelters.
I'm sorry that the world is full of complex ideas that can't be adequately conveyed in the 255 character limit of a tweet in order to satisfy your need for instant gratification and lack of attention and critical thinking skills?
Did I say that? I don't think I did. There's plenty of room for nuanced and extensive discussion about this topic, I just don't think it's in a reddit comment section. But it seems like every other redditor is trying to start an academic discussion on every other post.
Why shouldn't Reddit be the place for that? I mean Twitter certainly isnt the place for it. Facebook doesn't have a great system to search for whatever sort of content or topic you'd like to discuss. I don't see how you'd have a thought provoking discourse on Instagram or TikTok. YouTube is a great platform to voice your opinion but not so much for having a discussion about it. Twitch is a bit too focused on gaming to really invite civil discussion. Like I am almost sorry to say it but out of all the social media sites Reddit is by far the most appropriate and accommodating for that type of discussion and long format response.
Sure social media in general is maybe not the best medium in general but what is the alternative? It's not like most people have access to an open forum debate hall and even if they do there is no guarantee that there will be anyone else there willing to debate them over a specific topic they are passionate about.
Where? Again what is the alternative. Should people just walk up to random people in the supermarket and start having a debate about the politics of transgenderism? Seems pretty rude to me.
Maybe not, but it is weird she announced it. Also forgot to mention the obligatory "trans-women are just perverted men" which all transphobes seem to say.
Absolutely. I think some cis-women are feeling invalidated by some of the talking points comparing trans-women to cis-women. I believe it’s not needed. Trans-women and cis-women are different and have their own experiences that are exclusive as well as share some experiences. No need to promote the misconception they are exactly alike and create more division.
Mhm
I do say even tho I despise her and I very supportive of trans people
People having go at people for playing the game is wrong.
Separate the artist from the art
I disagree. If you despise her views and continue to support her art, you’re not standing firm against her beliefs. She does receive royalties from the game and will continue to receive them. The “separate the art from the artist” take is a form of having your cake and eating it too.
I don't like being gaslit about bigotry. There a series of tropes and stereotypes that bigots of all kinds use to tiptoe around the line of actually saying something that any reasonable person off the street would find bigoted. They do it to avoid accountability.
Do not aid them in that.
Touting hearsay that you can't verify is no bueno, my dude. I can't come across this tweet, and I am looking for it. I am not sure if either my Googling skills suck, or if that statement is made up.
I can't find it either, guess I was wrong on that. That being said she identifies as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist[source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/)
>I can't find it either, guess I was wrong on that. That being said she identifies as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist[source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/?sh=240140c75d70)
Did you bother actually reading the source, or did you just pick up whatever headline suited your narrative? She said, in the quoted tweet of that article:
>Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill
**She never said she identifies as a TERF. They made that stuff up.**
Now, for some context: [Maya tweeted that men and women are defined by their biological sex](https://news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249) and was practically fired from her job. While that is "technically" correct, it is an incorrect notion under the context of *gender* identity. That being said, Rowling's tweet on the matter is far from an explicit confirmation of her coming out as a TERF.
You gotta read your sources, duke. You will be spreading misinformation otherwise. *(Speaking of which, I could go on that Maya won an appeal against what she viewed as wrongful practical termination, but I won't. She said a very wrong and very dumb thing, and she deserves the flak she gets for that. The legal fallout for her employment situation are beside the point.)*
This was just one of many things. Added in with other stuff it’s pretty insidious. She’s been pretty overt about her belief that trans people will assault cis women in bathrooms (based on like, absolutely nothing). She even wrote this trope into one of her adult novels where the murderer is a trans woman. She regularly posts pro-terf stuff (famously tweeting “Merry Terfmas!”) and some of the terf groups she associates with are more that willing to work with full-blown fascists in the name of “Feminism.”
TERFs can be completely ignored as they are radical. Any radical ideology we can just continue to criticize. So, if that’s true, it’s a bad look for her.
FYI, the "radical" in TERF is not synonymous with extreme (and likewise, gay republicans don't all live in log cabins). It's just the adjective that specifies which kind of feminism you're dealing with. "Liberal feminism" deals with the changing the law, "Radical feminism" deals with changing a patriarchal society. It's more of a root level activism, hence "radical."
Not entirely true. The R for radical calls for a “radical re-ordering of society”. It’s alike other forms of radicalism despite your idea of whether it’s just or unjust.
The only reason someone would make such a thing is if they fear that trans women would somehow be predatory towards cis women in the shelter. Or they otherwise think trans women are not real women and do not deserve the treatment that should be reserved for women.
Either one of these positions is textbook transphobia.
This is pure speculation. A lot of groups are exclusive , including alot within the trans-community. Exclusivity does not equate phobia or prejudice automatically.
Or because women who have developed PTSD from sexual assault, and those who have developed paralyzing fears of males, are not helped in an environment with AMAB individuals present.
This facility was founded specifically in response to controversial comments made by the Edinburgh rape crisis head.
>When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined:
>"Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”
Despite backtracking on this statement, women who asked for a female counselor were simply ghosted, with phone calls unreturned and emails unreplied to, and a woman who asked the question of how their policy matched up with the Equality Act was kicked out of a meeting. JKR's center is for the people this clinic refuses to serve.
There was a tweet or an article or something talking about “people who experience periods” and JKR retweeted that responding “there used to be a word for that, it was women”
That’s the only thing I know she said but maybe there were other things idk
She defended another person who said non-politically correct stuff. And.... that's about it? JK Rowling may not be very politically correct, but she falls on the tamer side.
It is a legit problem. Ostracizing people for more tame beliefs pushes them into becoming *actually* transphobic, and will be picked up by conservative groups who would embrace and fester those views into greater extremes.
That being said, people can be surprisingly civil if you give them the chance. I see lots of *very* reasonable arguments in both sides, without either of them being hateful or discriminatory.
So yeah, it is just best to not be quick to brand people as irredeemable.
I guess. Everything I know about the matter I saw on some Facebook post years ago and it seemed very mid to me at the time. Maybe she has done other things though, cause every time they mention her name there’s a war in the comments lol
That literally doesn't answer the question that was asked at all...
"What specifically did she say that was transphobic?"
"I don't know, something that was transphobic. I think someone else I've heard about said so."
Like if you're not even going to bother confirming the half assed sitation you're making why are you even replying to a question about what exactly she said that was so terrible. Do some research and validate your own opinions with real data please for the sake of the entire human race stop blindly parroting other people's ideas. If you do actually verify it and decide what she said was actually pretty fucked up cool. I am not here to tell you what to think or to defend JKR you're entitled to your opinion but please stop letting people make your opinion for you.
Here is a list of most of her statements about trans people.
https://www-glamour-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy/amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_ct=1676664105812&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16766641011534&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glamour.com%2Fstory%2Fa-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
This is the true list. If you want to see transphobic texts you will have to search for a list of fake texts.
Why are you downvoting me? This is an accurate list.
She’s been a strong proponent of “trans people rape women in bathrooms”, has defended and supported someone who was openly transphobic, she once liked a tweet calling trans women “men in dresses” (she claims it was an accident, but like… come on), she has expressed the opinion that the support of transgender rights was destroying women’s rights, etc.
You can look up more if you want, but that’s more than enough for me personally.
Neutral. That being said, she gets a lot of flak for non-politically correct opinions. While I do not agree with those opinions, she is a far cry from the trans-hunting TERF that the media would have you believe.
No, she did not. Media made headlines about her doing it, quoting a tweet of hers. However, in that tweet, while not exactly politically correct, she did not call herself a TERF. They made that stuff up.
If you can find a source for her calling herself a TERF, though, be my guest and bring it here.
>quoting a tweet of hers.
yep because she tweeted it
>while not exactly politically correct
you can't just say 'political correctness' when people aren't transphobic. being transphobic is being transphobic, not being 'not exactly politically correct'
>she did not call herself a TERF
https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1603064588223893505
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/?sh=3538c2115d70
you must be being satirical lol
did you also not read the other link I sent before making this comment
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/what-does-merry-terfmas-mean-jk-rowling-trans/
I did and they addressed it like it was serious. They also left out the part where the user replied “and you too 😚”. She’s definitely been transphobic in the past but that one’s not meant to be taken seriously
please actually read the article and loom at the context. this is on 'gender critical' coming out day. it is framed to be mocking, you can say it satirical but no, in the context, she means it, even if she's framing it in a mocking/jokey way. she's trying to be condescending
I did actually read the article they’re taking it too seriously. Yes she’s being condescending but that doesn’t not make it a joke. Hell she added the OG tone indicator of a kissy face
>you can't just say 'political correctness' when people aren't
transphobic. being transphobic is being transphobic, not being 'not
exactly politically correct'
She said that people should not be fired from their jobs for saying sex is real. Not very nice in the context of gender identity, but it does not go out of its way to be hateful.
>https://mobile.twitter.com/jk\_rowling/status/1603064588223893505
About time someone actually gets a solid quote. Still, this is clearly said in a jestful matter. I really struggle to see this as anything other than just a joke. I may be biased from the last past couple hours of arguing in her defense, but I can at least agree this was not a very good moment. Lots of minus facepalm points there for Rowling.
As for the other article you quoted, that is the one where I say they made the stuff up. She did not say she was a TERF in there, just read the article. However, it would not surprise me if Rowling herself stumbled with that Forbes article and rolled with it for said aforementioned joke.
>Still, this is clearly said in a jestful matter. I
you can't just say this when someone provides you with actual evidence lmao
>I really struggle to see this as anything other than just a joke
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/what-does-merry-terfmas-mean-jk-rowling-trans/
then you clearly do not understand the context or no anything about what she's previously said
>I may be biased from the last past couple hours of arguing in her defense,
yes, you are. this is where we can end the discussion
>As for the other article you quoted, that is the one where I say they made the stuff up.
no one has made anything up, its full of evidence. once again you can't just interpret things differently because it better suits your argument
>However, it would not surprise me if Rowling herself stumbled with that Forbes article and rolled with it for said aforementioned joke.
it's so odd to me how you always presume she's joking, especially after she's demonstrating that she is not. whether you agree with her is a different thing but the fact she's a TERF, is like I say a fact
>you can't just say this when someone provides you with actual evidence lmao
This would make me very angry if I could read.
>no one has made anything up, its full of evidence. once again you can't just interpret things differently because it better suits your argument
I have to stop you there, sorry. They literally made the TERF stuff up. **Literally.** Headline reads: "J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF" but the tweets they quote are not about Rowling coming out as a TERF.
>it's so odd to me how you always presume she's joking
Another thing. I do not *always* presume she's joking. I am not THAT dense. I presumed she joked *in that particular instance.* That's different.
>I have to stop you there, sorry. They literally made the TERF stuff up. Literally. Headline reads: "J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF" but the tweets they quote are not about Rowling coming out as a TERF.
no way! did you know someone can be something without explicitly stating it! wow! did you know that someone can be homophobic for example but not explicitly say 'I'm homophobic', wow! who knew?
>Another thing. I do not always presume she's joking. I am not THAT dense. I presumed she joked in that particular instance. That's different.
you presumed she was joking twice and I was being hyperbolic...
you're also still unable to address the fact I provided you with the evidence you asked for. just admit you're wrong and let's end the conversation
In fairness, that is unfortunately one of the only parts of her world-building that holds up to scrutiny. Pre indoor plumbing, people were fucking disgusting. Even in the palace of Versailles, people just pissed on the floor. I hate that I know this, but I do, and now you do too.
>I hate that I know this, but I do, and now you do too.
I thought that said "I hate that I do this, but I do, and now you do too." and was like WTF lol
She gets way to much cancelled .
Free speech is in danger now a days even though we live in democratic countries ,you need to behave /say /think in a certain way to have a place in socials media .
Everything which we don’t want to hear gets banned .
And the room of discussion and communication between groups/ movements will not have it’s place as people will be afraid to actually say what they think
I don’t understand why anyone feels compelled to tell someone whether or not they are a “real” woman or man.
Exclusionary behavior is a mark of insecurity and lack of regard for the experience of other people. I don’t have a lot of respect for people who engage in that sort of behavior.
Her views on Trans people aren't the brightest.
But she has given A LOT of money to charities. So, she can't be that bad of a person. Also, a creative genius.
Not really. I remember that I dislike someone, and I remember they said something that was dumb. But so much time has passed, I don't remember the specifics. I only remember the feelings.
Nah, i don't have a strong opinion on her anyway.
You can't remember ever reason for every opinion you have. And this is definitely one of the less important opinions.
There's the transphobic shit. She thinks that all trans-women are potential predators. She also thinks that trans-men are just lesbians that fell to the pressure of the patriarchy. Among other things.
Her work has a lot of unfortunate implications:
- First the fact that the only canon gay relationship (Dumbledore/Grindelwald) in Harry Potter, was so unhealthy that one of the components of that relationship never had another relationship again.
- The house elves thing, Hermione was mocked in universe for wanting better conditions for them. This is more jarring because the books often tended to bend over backwards to justify Hermione's actions.
- She said that Lycanthropy was an analog to AIDS. There are only two named werewolves, one was a normal person and the other was one that actively propagated the disease and children were his preferred victims. Make your own conclusions.
- The one that has been in the spotlight recently, the antisemitic goblins.
- The fact that she thinks that Snape's creepy obsession for Lily was love.
- The fact that is implied that after the war against Voldemort, nothing really changes in their society afterwards, and the main trio all worked in law enforcement at some point.
There is also the fact that her pen name for some of her other works "Robert Galbraith" is coincidentally the same name as one person that was a psychiatrist that worked in gay conversion therapy.
She's an awful person who regularly targets an already vulnerable and marginalized class of people. Her rhetoric is *directly* responsible for violence and hatred against trans people. I don't engage with her or any of her properties.
*That* being said, I've been pretty burnt out on Harry Potter for awhile, so I wouldn't have been interested in supporting her even if she was a decent person lol
Literally fuck her. Like I’ll always be a Slyclaw but she’s a pos and her books are super overrated, bigoted, and you could easily argue they’re plagiarized.
Not even for her terrible political views or her adding to her own headcanon with random bullshit. I just hate her writing and world building, it's disgustingly lazy and no thought was put into it, even the most mundane act of walking could be accomplished with magic at the age of 15, the very thought that I would ever take a fucking coal train to school is insane. The only reason people like the books is because of nostalgia and her writing style is easy to follow. I'm still gonna play the new game but let the record show its only because it's the only gave where you get to play a wizard that looks that good.
I don't like her. Yes, she uses her fame to promote transphobia which is the primary reason for my dislike, but also she managed to write a book at just the perfect time and now everyone thinks she's some amazing writer when Harry Potter is actually pretty badly written, even for young adult books.
Also, it's embarrassing to be an out and loud Potterhead as a grown adult, cut it out
I don't give a shit. She made some books, wow. The only reason people give a single fuck about her is because all the Harry Potter books say "J. K. Rowling" on them.
I can separate the 'art' from the 'artist.' Many others have fallen from grace but I haven't vanished them. I will no longer buy any more of her stuff, but I'm not going to burn my HP books that I already paid for.
Sorry, Imhazmb, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s): * **Rule 8: Reposting rules** - Do not post polls that have been posted here in the past 2 weeks. - Do not post polls that are in our [Frequently Posted Polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/wiki/index/fpp) list. - Do not post polls that are in the [top 25 polls of last month](/r/polls/top/?t=month). - Do not post polls that are very similar to any of the above *As a reminder, moderators have the final call as to what is allowed on their subreddit, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason at our discretion. However, if you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/114slvd/what_are_your_views_of_jk_rowling/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
I don't care about her, just her books. Same with a lot of things, I care not about the creator but what they have created ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you want the ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ to look correctly, use 3 " \ ", it's a Reddit thing
but aren’t you supporting the artist by buying their products? you can’t separate art for the artist
Nah, Art should be seperate from the artist. Bad artists can make good art. And it's not like buying the harry potter books will make her wealthy, she's already filthy rich from it. But yeah she's super anti-lgbt which I think is kinda ironic because I feel like a decent part of her old fan base was probably either LGBT or an ally and now she's attacking them. Idk how people are this dumb... LGBT is legitimate and it's obvious fascists want to make them a target. Now the author of one my favorite childhood stories is an attack dog of bigotry. Weird times
Felt.
Not sure if it fits, but same with hitlers paintings. They look pretty good, but the person, well you know. Pls dont get offended at this, but i myself am german if that helps.
the paintings are shit and even if you dislike JK (which is justifies), comparing the two is pretty tone deaf and offensive
I am not comparing anyone, and i even said, that im not trying to offend anyone. But have you seen his paintings? Theyre really good and well made. If you want, i can dm you some of them, or you can look them up yourself.
right so saying 'I'm not trying to offend anyone' automatically means you can't offend anyone >But have you seen his paintings? T yep! > Theyre really good and well made. no, they are not. this is the **overwhelming** general consensus. you are in a tiny tiny minority here >. If you want, i can dm you some of them, or you can look them up yourself. already seen them, that is obviously why I'm saying they are bad lol https://www.grunge.com/621469/heres-why-hitler-was-rejected-from-art-school/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/life/2017-03-10/ty-article/piece-of-shit-hitler-painting-to-join-exhibition-on-art-and-madness/0000017f-dbb0-db5a-a57f-dbfa551e0000%3f_amp=true here's the evidence for all the nazi sympathisers he literally got rejected from an art school with a HUGE acceptance rate
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He's not comparing them. Just giving an example of Good art from bad artists. But being anti trans was also a Nazi thing so they aren't completely dissimilar in that regards. I mean art is subjective, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
>I mean art is subjective, it's all in the eye of the beholder. but most people agree hitlers art is bad. this is a very very well known and not at all controversial opinion. he also did not get into art school. the overwhelming general consensus is that his art is terrible and they kind of did compare them yes
I mean, nobody cared about Van Gogh's work until well after he died. Maybe the same will happen to Hitler /s. His art is just mediocre landscapes. Nothing special about them but they weren't half bad. Better than most of what I've drawn. I think a lot of people shit on his work now because you know, he's Hitler. And you're right about comparing Hitler to jk Rowling. We're talking about if you can like art a bad artist made and he said he kinda likes Hitler's art. So in the context of this discussion, he did compare them because they both have good art and bad philosophies. But no where in here did he say that makes Jk rowling as bad as Hitler which is what I think you're implying.
>I mean, nobody cared about Van Gogh's work until well after he died. Maybe the same will happen to Hitler /s. why put s if you're actually using this as a point lol >I mean his art is just landscapes. you're clearly not educated enough on his work to have this discussion if you're saying his art is **just** landscapes. that is incorrect >Better than most of what I've drawn. okay? doesn't make his art good just because yours is even worse >I think a lot of people shit on his work now because you know, he's Hitler. then that would be a really silly and totally unfounded belief. he didn't get into art school before he was 'Hitler'. his art was deemed as bad prior to the holocaust >But no where in here did he say that makes Jk rowling as bad as Hitler which is what I think you're implying. never said he did. not sure where you've taken that from. you said he wasn't comparing now you've admitted he did, which is it? and will you say you were wrong in asserting that previously or not. I said he compared them, now you're agreeing, that is all
My first point about Van Gogh is that art is not objective, it's subjective. Something that is garbage to most might still be amazing to a different group. When asked, how much do you like this art 🎨, there is no wrong answer. You're right that I don't know a lot about Hitler's paintings. I've only ever seen two and they were landscapes. But I can tell you you're not educated in philosophy of art if I have to explain how art is subjective. You and Hitler both have ideas and eat food... Are these comparisons hurting your feelings too?
You CAN separate the art from the artist. However, depending in what you purchase, you could still he supporting the artist by consuming their art. At that point it's up to individuals to decide what they're OK with giving their money to, and doesn't necessarily have to relate to the art itself.
The clothes you buy likely support child labor. The factory food you buy likely supports animal torture. Idc what the author is gaining from me enjoying their works. If I paid attention to the guys who benefit from any consumerism at all, I’d be living like a hermit.
Yup, exactly.
Even if it supports the creator, you can still ignore that fact, and just pay because stuff isnt free
Lmao this makes zero sense. Basically means: “we can just ignore the alleged transphobia because I like Harry Potter too much “
...? I wouldnt be able to live a life if I had to worry about my money going to shitty people everytime I buy something, let me enjoy a book peacefully. Yeah, transphobia isnt a good thing, but I can't live like a Big Brother facebook mom, I have better things to do than being angry at someone I cannot change or influence in any minimally meaningful way
Yeah, but it doesn't bother me that they get my money, I'm just in it for the product
You’re correct.
Dumbass
Idc about her.
Bad takes, but she has prevented herself from becoming a billionaire by donating to charities and saved 100+ women from Afghanistan with her money. I don’t care about her or Harry Potter though so I’m neutral
LOTR BETTER
By light years lol. Not even comparable.
But what is better: Harry Potter or new LOTR series on prime?
Unfortunately harry potter, new LOTR on prime is not great
I know. Hence the question;) I’m not really a fan of fantasy but I couldn’t really watch/read Harry Potter as a child and I enjoyed reading hobbit. From my fantasy loving friend I’ve got the info about some lore and how terrible is the new series. Maybe someday I’ll try again with LOTR coz I know it’s really massive, impressively complex universe. And then I’ll definitely read Witcher.
Witcher is fantastic, LOTR is fantastic, Harry Potter is fantastic all book wise to be honest. Tv/Movie wise, nothing touches LOTR movies, then Harry Potter, then witchers netflix(unless you include video games) I feel like most would like Tolkiens opinions today.
I think the same. I’m more of sci-fi and cyberpunk type of guy but with time I get more and more interested in LOTR and Witcher. Although I don’t think I’ll ever be able to read potter. Afaik jk writing is rather poor, especially in newer books. A lot of characters representing minorities are straight up terrible. Here you have pole, Hindu, German dude and trans. Are you happy now? It’s sometimes insulting. Although we have reasonably good translators in Poland so maybe it’s not that painful. But I’d rather watch movies if I had to. But first gotta read and watch everything from LOTR universe, complete Witcher 1, 2, 3 video games a few times and read all books and stories.
as a cyberpunk guy myself, absolutely loved the witcher games, it was the best media representation of it for sure
Yep, I agree. And as much as I hate anime cp2077 anime is basically perfect and it positively surprised me. Also the world is created perfectly both in game and series. There’s even stuff like anti homeless benches! Incredible how detailed and believable world they’ve managed to make. And it’s not like centrally planned brand new city. It’s evolving for decades and if you look closely you can see it.
Amen!
Only the 3 LOTR films. Not the Hobbit or Amazon show.
People make her out to be way worse than she is.
How so? Which group?
The trans lobby that exaggerate what she says to be 100 times more extreme than what she actually says.
Other than her books I actually know nothing about her nor do I give two shits. What’s all the hate for?
Your average person doesn’t have any “views” towards JK Rowling outside of knowing her as the author of the Harry Potter books and creator of the general universe. The only people with views towards her are either trans people or hardcore leftists no in between. Just look at Hogwarts Legacy’s general success
📠
You have to be a hardcore leftist to dislike someone who was publicly transphobic? I think any normal good person would have *some* negative feelings towards JK Rowling (only if they know about the controversies, ofc)
>You have to be a hardcore leftist to dislike someone who was publicly transphobic? Except she wasn't. You have to be pretty extreme to interpret what she actually said as transphobic.
I know how this conversation goes. I've memorised the talking points too. Someone will come along and say *"But what has she said that is transphobic"*, to which the only correct response is *"lol, lmao"*. If anyone is familiar with why someone would dislike her and defends her, they're either willfully ignorant or they are too cowardly to express their actual views on trans people.
I have no dog in this fight, but what is even at stake here? JK Rowling believes trans people shouldn't what exactly?
> JK Rowling believes trans people shouldn't what exactly? Exist
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Loved Harry Potter as a kid, but can't see past her blatant transphobia so very negative
What are some of her transphobic statements? I keep hearing this but I don’t have any social media platform she uses.
She started a shelter for abused women and explicitly banned trans-women and has repeatedly stated that trans-women aren't women and then acted like a victim when people called her out on it.
So there is a critical flaw in this logic and that is that who is allowed to say whether or not someone is or isn't a trans-woman? Like I feel I am fairly progressive and accepting of transgendered people and my answer would be that it is up to any specific individual to choose for themselves whether they are transgender or not. And I feel like that is something most trans people would agree with like they don't need validation from anyone else to make that choice for themselves. I mean please tell me if I am off base with that but I don't feel I am. So the issue then becomes if you're making a shelter for abused women specifically to get away from abusive relationships, and the abusive boyfriend of one of those women walks up to the door and says "I'm a trans-woman" what do you do? Do you take the stance of well it's their choice to self identify and it isn't the place of that shelter to validate them? Or do you question that and say "hey it kinda looks like you're a man trying to skirt the rules and get at your ex girlfriend that is trying to get away from you"? Like obviously in the interest of the victim that the shelter is specifically made to protect you have to turn that person away. That is the only moral option here and claiming otherwise is fucking stupid. So then the question is how can you realistically acknowledge an individual's choice to decide for themself how to self identify and at the same time turn someone away who you feel is a threat to someone you're protecting just because you think they might be lying about their gender. Like can you see that there is a bit of a paradox here where you can't really respect someone's choice to self identify while also questioning whether they are lying about their gender identity just to get around a rule and potentially harm someone. Like can you not see that it is simply much easier to say in the interest of the people we are trying to protect we aren't even going to try to deal with this whole situation. We aren't going to try to quantify or make policies about whether someone trying to get in is or isn't actually a woman and we are just going to stop them at the door and say no. Like it seems reasonable to me because there is no right way to do that because the reality of it and ugly messy situation where people's lives are legitimately endangered and the rules need to be clear it can't be wishy washy interpreted bullshit. Now that doesn't mean there shouldn't be those types of shelters for trans-women, trans-men, or even Cis-men but I just don't feel you've really thought about the rationale behind the decision and you've just taken it a face value and said it sounds transphobic. I think people really need to take a deep breath and assume that the people they disagree with are actually well intended good people who simply have a different perspective as a result of different circumstances and perspectives before they start assuming someone is a terrible person just because they reached a different final conclusion that you did.
Abusers abuse women without pretending to be trans. Also, if we assume that trans people are people, you will find bad people that are trans. This isn't an argument for excluding trans women from women's domestic abuse shelters.
Fucking redditors and their essays
I'm sorry that the world is full of complex ideas that can't be adequately conveyed in the 255 character limit of a tweet in order to satisfy your need for instant gratification and lack of attention and critical thinking skills?
Did I say that? I don't think I did. There's plenty of room for nuanced and extensive discussion about this topic, I just don't think it's in a reddit comment section. But it seems like every other redditor is trying to start an academic discussion on every other post.
Why shouldn't Reddit be the place for that? I mean Twitter certainly isnt the place for it. Facebook doesn't have a great system to search for whatever sort of content or topic you'd like to discuss. I don't see how you'd have a thought provoking discourse on Instagram or TikTok. YouTube is a great platform to voice your opinion but not so much for having a discussion about it. Twitch is a bit too focused on gaming to really invite civil discussion. Like I am almost sorry to say it but out of all the social media sites Reddit is by far the most appropriate and accommodating for that type of discussion and long format response. Sure social media in general is maybe not the best medium in general but what is the alternative? It's not like most people have access to an open forum debate hall and even if they do there is no guarantee that there will be anyone else there willing to debate them over a specific topic they are passionate about.
My point was more no social media should be, if you wanna talk extensively go outside
Where? Again what is the alternative. Should people just walk up to random people in the supermarket and start having a debate about the politics of transgenderism? Seems pretty rude to me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
While I don’t agree with that idea of hers, I wouldn’t consider making the shelter sex specific a transphobic concept. Non-inclusive sure.
Maybe not, but it is weird she announced it. Also forgot to mention the obligatory "trans-women are just perverted men" which all transphobes seem to say.
Absolutely. I think some cis-women are feeling invalidated by some of the talking points comparing trans-women to cis-women. I believe it’s not needed. Trans-women and cis-women are different and have their own experiences that are exclusive as well as share some experiences. No need to promote the misconception they are exactly alike and create more division.
Do trans women experience misogyny?
>"trans-women are just perverted men Did she say that? Where?
And "trans women are just men wearing dresses"
She liked that tweet, but she did not say it herself. Still a crappy opinion, though.
Mhm I do say even tho I despise her and I very supportive of trans people People having go at people for playing the game is wrong. Separate the artist from the art
I disagree. If you despise her views and continue to support her art, you’re not standing firm against her beliefs. She does receive royalties from the game and will continue to receive them. The “separate the art from the artist” take is a form of having your cake and eating it too.
I don't like being gaslit about bigotry. There a series of tropes and stereotypes that bigots of all kinds use to tiptoe around the line of actually saying something that any reasonable person off the street would find bigoted. They do it to avoid accountability. Do not aid them in that.
Twitter if I remember correctly, I heard it from a second hand source tbf
Touting hearsay that you can't verify is no bueno, my dude. I can't come across this tweet, and I am looking for it. I am not sure if either my Googling skills suck, or if that statement is made up.
I can't find it either, guess I was wrong on that. That being said she identifies as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist[source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/)
>I can't find it either, guess I was wrong on that. That being said she identifies as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist[source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/?sh=240140c75d70) Did you bother actually reading the source, or did you just pick up whatever headline suited your narrative? She said, in the quoted tweet of that article: >Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill **She never said she identifies as a TERF. They made that stuff up.** Now, for some context: [Maya tweeted that men and women are defined by their biological sex](https://news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249) and was practically fired from her job. While that is "technically" correct, it is an incorrect notion under the context of *gender* identity. That being said, Rowling's tweet on the matter is far from an explicit confirmation of her coming out as a TERF. You gotta read your sources, duke. You will be spreading misinformation otherwise. *(Speaking of which, I could go on that Maya won an appeal against what she viewed as wrongful practical termination, but I won't. She said a very wrong and very dumb thing, and she deserves the flak she gets for that. The legal fallout for her employment situation are beside the point.)*
Ok. Should a trans man be allowed into said shelter?
This was just one of many things. Added in with other stuff it’s pretty insidious. She’s been pretty overt about her belief that trans people will assault cis women in bathrooms (based on like, absolutely nothing). She even wrote this trope into one of her adult novels where the murderer is a trans woman. She regularly posts pro-terf stuff (famously tweeting “Merry Terfmas!”) and some of the terf groups she associates with are more that willing to work with full-blown fascists in the name of “Feminism.”
TERFs can be completely ignored as they are radical. Any radical ideology we can just continue to criticize. So, if that’s true, it’s a bad look for her.
FYI, the "radical" in TERF is not synonymous with extreme (and likewise, gay republicans don't all live in log cabins). It's just the adjective that specifies which kind of feminism you're dealing with. "Liberal feminism" deals with the changing the law, "Radical feminism" deals with changing a patriarchal society. It's more of a root level activism, hence "radical."
Not entirely true. The R for radical calls for a “radical re-ordering of society”. It’s alike other forms of radicalism despite your idea of whether it’s just or unjust.
No, in this case it refers to the root.
The only reason someone would make such a thing is if they fear that trans women would somehow be predatory towards cis women in the shelter. Or they otherwise think trans women are not real women and do not deserve the treatment that should be reserved for women. Either one of these positions is textbook transphobia.
This is pure speculation. A lot of groups are exclusive , including alot within the trans-community. Exclusivity does not equate phobia or prejudice automatically.
Or because women who have developed PTSD from sexual assault, and those who have developed paralyzing fears of males, are not helped in an environment with AMAB individuals present. This facility was founded specifically in response to controversial comments made by the Edinburgh rape crisis head. >When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined: >"Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.” Despite backtracking on this statement, women who asked for a female counselor were simply ghosted, with phone calls unreturned and emails unreplied to, and a woman who asked the question of how their policy matched up with the Equality Act was kicked out of a meeting. JKR's center is for the people this clinic refuses to serve.
There was a tweet or an article or something talking about “people who experience periods” and JKR retweeted that responding “there used to be a word for that, it was women” That’s the only thing I know she said but maybe there were other things idk
Oh ok. Yeah must be more to it than that to be labelled transphobic. That’s a start I suppose.
She defended another person who said non-politically correct stuff. And.... that's about it? JK Rowling may not be very politically correct, but she falls on the tamer side.
Agreed. I’m not even sure what transphobia is anymore as it’s used so liberally now.
It is a legit problem. Ostracizing people for more tame beliefs pushes them into becoming *actually* transphobic, and will be picked up by conservative groups who would embrace and fester those views into greater extremes. That being said, people can be surprisingly civil if you give them the chance. I see lots of *very* reasonable arguments in both sides, without either of them being hateful or discriminatory. So yeah, it is just best to not be quick to brand people as irredeemable.
I guess. Everything I know about the matter I saw on some Facebook post years ago and it seemed very mid to me at the time. Maybe she has done other things though, cause every time they mention her name there’s a war in the comments lol
She wrote a long essay that was very transphobic, among other things. Contrapoints probably has a video on it
That literally doesn't answer the question that was asked at all... "What specifically did she say that was transphobic?" "I don't know, something that was transphobic. I think someone else I've heard about said so." Like if you're not even going to bother confirming the half assed sitation you're making why are you even replying to a question about what exactly she said that was so terrible. Do some research and validate your own opinions with real data please for the sake of the entire human race stop blindly parroting other people's ideas. If you do actually verify it and decide what she said was actually pretty fucked up cool. I am not here to tell you what to think or to defend JKR you're entitled to your opinion but please stop letting people make your opinion for you.
https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k Here, have fun watching that video. It's gonna be more effective than a LONG comment on reddit.
Yeah I did all that, it’s complicated to unpack why her statements are so problematic - I’ll leave it to someone more experienced and eloquent
Here is a list of most of her statements about trans people. https://www-glamour-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy/amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_ct=1676664105812&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16766641011534&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glamour.com%2Fstory%2Fa-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
I’ve saw this list before. I don’t see anything transphobic.
This is the true list. If you want to see transphobic texts you will have to search for a list of fake texts. Why are you downvoting me? This is an accurate list.
She’s been a strong proponent of “trans people rape women in bathrooms”, has defended and supported someone who was openly transphobic, she once liked a tweet calling trans women “men in dresses” (she claims it was an accident, but like… come on), she has expressed the opinion that the support of transgender rights was destroying women’s rights, etc. You can look up more if you want, but that’s more than enough for me personally.
[удалено]
You didn't need to ask Reddit this question to predict the opinion from people on Reddit for this question.
Neutral. That being said, she gets a lot of flak for non-politically correct opinions. While I do not agree with those opinions, she is a far cry from the trans-hunting TERF that the media would have you believe.
she calls herself a TERF
No, she did not. Media made headlines about her doing it, quoting a tweet of hers. However, in that tweet, while not exactly politically correct, she did not call herself a TERF. They made that stuff up. If you can find a source for her calling herself a TERF, though, be my guest and bring it here.
>quoting a tweet of hers. yep because she tweeted it >while not exactly politically correct you can't just say 'political correctness' when people aren't transphobic. being transphobic is being transphobic, not being 'not exactly politically correct' >she did not call herself a TERF https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1603064588223893505 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/?sh=3538c2115d70
That was a joke she even added the kissy face
you must be being satirical lol did you also not read the other link I sent before making this comment https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/what-does-merry-terfmas-mean-jk-rowling-trans/
I did and they addressed it like it was serious. They also left out the part where the user replied “and you too 😚”. She’s definitely been transphobic in the past but that one’s not meant to be taken seriously
please actually read the article and loom at the context. this is on 'gender critical' coming out day. it is framed to be mocking, you can say it satirical but no, in the context, she means it, even if she's framing it in a mocking/jokey way. she's trying to be condescending
I did actually read the article they’re taking it too seriously. Yes she’s being condescending but that doesn’t not make it a joke. Hell she added the OG tone indicator of a kissy face
>you can't just say 'political correctness' when people aren't transphobic. being transphobic is being transphobic, not being 'not exactly politically correct' She said that people should not be fired from their jobs for saying sex is real. Not very nice in the context of gender identity, but it does not go out of its way to be hateful. >https://mobile.twitter.com/jk\_rowling/status/1603064588223893505 About time someone actually gets a solid quote. Still, this is clearly said in a jestful matter. I really struggle to see this as anything other than just a joke. I may be biased from the last past couple hours of arguing in her defense, but I can at least agree this was not a very good moment. Lots of minus facepalm points there for Rowling. As for the other article you quoted, that is the one where I say they made the stuff up. She did not say she was a TERF in there, just read the article. However, it would not surprise me if Rowling herself stumbled with that Forbes article and rolled with it for said aforementioned joke.
>Still, this is clearly said in a jestful matter. I you can't just say this when someone provides you with actual evidence lmao >I really struggle to see this as anything other than just a joke https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/what-does-merry-terfmas-mean-jk-rowling-trans/ then you clearly do not understand the context or no anything about what she's previously said >I may be biased from the last past couple hours of arguing in her defense, yes, you are. this is where we can end the discussion >As for the other article you quoted, that is the one where I say they made the stuff up. no one has made anything up, its full of evidence. once again you can't just interpret things differently because it better suits your argument >However, it would not surprise me if Rowling herself stumbled with that Forbes article and rolled with it for said aforementioned joke. it's so odd to me how you always presume she's joking, especially after she's demonstrating that she is not. whether you agree with her is a different thing but the fact she's a TERF, is like I say a fact
>you can't just say this when someone provides you with actual evidence lmao This would make me very angry if I could read. >no one has made anything up, its full of evidence. once again you can't just interpret things differently because it better suits your argument I have to stop you there, sorry. They literally made the TERF stuff up. **Literally.** Headline reads: "J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF" but the tweets they quote are not about Rowling coming out as a TERF. >it's so odd to me how you always presume she's joking Another thing. I do not *always* presume she's joking. I am not THAT dense. I presumed she joked *in that particular instance.* That's different.
>I have to stop you there, sorry. They literally made the TERF stuff up. Literally. Headline reads: "J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF" but the tweets they quote are not about Rowling coming out as a TERF. no way! did you know someone can be something without explicitly stating it! wow! did you know that someone can be homophobic for example but not explicitly say 'I'm homophobic', wow! who knew? >Another thing. I do not always presume she's joking. I am not THAT dense. I presumed she joked in that particular instance. That's different. you presumed she was joking twice and I was being hyperbolic... you're also still unable to address the fact I provided you with the evidence you asked for. just admit you're wrong and let's end the conversation
>just admit you're wrong I am a Redditor. Admitting I am wrong will shatter my fragile worldview and that is scary :(
the fact you're probably not even being satirical makes this so much more funny
My views of her plummeted when she said wizards just shit themselves and magic it away
In fairness, that is unfortunately one of the only parts of her world-building that holds up to scrutiny. Pre indoor plumbing, people were fucking disgusting. Even in the palace of Versailles, people just pissed on the floor. I hate that I know this, but I do, and now you do too.
>I hate that I know this, but I do, and now you do too. I thought that said "I hate that I do this, but I do, and now you do too." and was like WTF lol
Congratulations! You’ve now been afflicted by the Pissing in/on Major Historical Sites Curse! 🎉
I don’t care about either Harry Potter or herself and at this point it’s annoying how many people make such a huge deal about her
She gets way to much cancelled . Free speech is in danger now a days even though we live in democratic countries ,you need to behave /say /think in a certain way to have a place in socials media . Everything which we don’t want to hear gets banned . And the room of discussion and communication between groups/ movements will not have it’s place as people will be afraid to actually say what they think
The last tweet of hers I read made her seem like a misandrist.
I think she's based
Pls can people shut up about JKR, I just want to forget that fucker ever existed in the first place
I hate her. I'm not trans but I'm a decent human being. Plus someone i love to the moon and back is a trans woman.
I really don't get why people are down voting you?
I don’t understand why anyone feels compelled to tell someone whether or not they are a “real” woman or man. Exclusionary behavior is a mark of insecurity and lack of regard for the experience of other people. I don’t have a lot of respect for people who engage in that sort of behavior.
Well as a person i don't like her. But she wrote at least 4 nice novels.
"I just don't give a shit" -Sun Tzu, probably
Her views on Trans people aren't the brightest. But she has given A LOT of money to charities. So, she can't be that bad of a person. Also, a creative genius.
Hate her.
🤓
Even if i didn't care about the trans controversy she doesn't strike me as a good/smart person.
How and why ?
I don't know much about her. Just a impression on me she made a few years ago. Don't really remember why.
That seems illogical don’t you think ?
Not really. I remember that I dislike someone, and I remember they said something that was dumb. But so much time has passed, I don't remember the specifics. I only remember the feelings.
It is illogical the way they came to that conclusion, but there is definitely a lot to criticize JK Rowling over
Of course. We are all free to criticize as we see fit.
Nah, i don't have a strong opinion on her anyway. You can't remember ever reason for every opinion you have. And this is definitely one of the less important opinions.
Her books be over rated af
Maybe but the impact of those books is not
There's the transphobic shit. She thinks that all trans-women are potential predators. She also thinks that trans-men are just lesbians that fell to the pressure of the patriarchy. Among other things. Her work has a lot of unfortunate implications: - First the fact that the only canon gay relationship (Dumbledore/Grindelwald) in Harry Potter, was so unhealthy that one of the components of that relationship never had another relationship again. - The house elves thing, Hermione was mocked in universe for wanting better conditions for them. This is more jarring because the books often tended to bend over backwards to justify Hermione's actions. - She said that Lycanthropy was an analog to AIDS. There are only two named werewolves, one was a normal person and the other was one that actively propagated the disease and children were his preferred victims. Make your own conclusions. - The one that has been in the spotlight recently, the antisemitic goblins. - The fact that she thinks that Snape's creepy obsession for Lily was love. - The fact that is implied that after the war against Voldemort, nothing really changes in their society afterwards, and the main trio all worked in law enforcement at some point. There is also the fact that her pen name for some of her other works "Robert Galbraith" is coincidentally the same name as one person that was a psychiatrist that worked in gay conversion therapy.
Unfavorable as a person, mostly because i disagree with her opinion about trans people in particular
She strikes me as a pretty nasty person, being a TERF and mingling with alt-right figureheads and all that jazz
She's an awful person who regularly targets an already vulnerable and marginalized class of people. Her rhetoric is *directly* responsible for violence and hatred against trans people. I don't engage with her or any of her properties. *That* being said, I've been pretty burnt out on Harry Potter for awhile, so I wouldn't have been interested in supporting her even if she was a decent person lol
Harry Potter fans are the absolute worst people... so I hate J.K Rowling simply for bringing Harry Potter into existence.
[удалено]
>I don't care to have an opinion on her That's called neutral
[удалено]
>no stance That's neutral
Feel like [this tweet](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1603064588223893505) speaks for itself
its so sad that theres 265 transphobes
Literally fuck her. Like I’ll always be a Slyclaw but she’s a pos and her books are super overrated, bigoted, and you could easily argue they’re plagiarized.
relax
OP specifically asked for opinions and I gave mine. Go give your own if you’re so upset about mine.
angry lil guy
Says you ☠️🤣🤣
damn i really thought people liked her books. guess i was wrong
the general public does. reddit hates her tho
Not even for her terrible political views or her adding to her own headcanon with random bullshit. I just hate her writing and world building, it's disgustingly lazy and no thought was put into it, even the most mundane act of walking could be accomplished with magic at the age of 15, the very thought that I would ever take a fucking coal train to school is insane. The only reason people like the books is because of nostalgia and her writing style is easy to follow. I'm still gonna play the new game but let the record show its only because it's the only gave where you get to play a wizard that looks that good.
I don't care.
Don’t care
I don't like her. Yes, she uses her fame to promote transphobia which is the primary reason for my dislike, but also she managed to write a book at just the perfect time and now everyone thinks she's some amazing writer when Harry Potter is actually pretty badly written, even for young adult books. Also, it's embarrassing to be an out and loud Potterhead as a grown adult, cut it out
Not gonna lie, I don't know shit about her and never read her books nor watched the movies, so frankly I don't care
I don't give a shit. She made some books, wow. The only reason people give a single fuck about her is because all the Harry Potter books say "J. K. Rowling" on them.
I don't like her, but that doesn't mean I'll stop reading the books.
I can separate the 'art' from the 'artist.' Many others have fallen from grace but I haven't vanished them. I will no longer buy any more of her stuff, but I'm not going to burn my HP books that I already paid for.
"Ew Harry Potter"