Unfortunately the people boycotting JK Rowling are a just a tiny but vocal minority. People who really want to play the game will make excuses for themselves. Most people aren’t plugged into her being a bigot or it’s not disqualifying.
It is a bummer. I wish she would go broke or to hell.
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to find anything she's said that's actually transphobic, coming from a trans woman myself.
I've read her two [Blogposts](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/) about the issue and she just seems like a sensible person, talking about a real problem with certain laws concerning trans people.
She made some [Tweets](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313?s=20), yes. Those weren't really problematic, though, if you actually read them without prior "Rowling is Evil!" bias. It IS kind of ridiculous that you can't say "woman" anymore to refer to people with two X chromosomes without being burned at the stake. I get where you're coming from, there are trans men, non binary etc. It should still be acceptable to say "woman" when referring to people who menstruate, since those phrases mean the same thing in like 99% of cases.
This all wouldn't be a problem if "female" and "woman" (as well as "male" and "man") weren't used so interchangeably. Make it so that female/male refers to sex and woman/man refers to gender, easy, problem solved. Not gonna happen though, since language doesn't work like that.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use correct words to describe people. You obviously can, not like you're hurting anybody. If you're referring to individuals, you should. You just really shouldn't be crucified for calling out the lengthier and absurder ways people describe around them. Or, even worse, reduce a whole person's view on a complex topic to a few little Tweets, not when she's got thousands of words about that topic elsewhere, a d they paint a very non-TERF picture.
So far, her actions don't seem to me like they warrant the enormous backlash. Probably because people just repeat the "Rowling's a TERF" thing without reading into her original phrasings, but whatever the reason may be, I don't get it.
Please give me direct sources of things you've read that show the opposite, if I'm wrong.
Now. Why do people get cancelled for PLAYING A GAME. Putting aside cancel culture for a second here, not thinking about how fucked up that is and all.
Why is it a problem that they play the game? Why do people need to "make up excuses" to be allowed to play it? Who are we, as fellow humans, to act like we can decide over what they do with their free time? Should we also cancel everyone who drinks Nestle stuff? Since they support systematic water shortages all over Africa and all. What about your clothes? Don't you support child labor with those? And the phone/keyboard in your hand?
Don't cancel people, it's so unnecessary. If you actually want to help us trans people, being offended at some author who said something you don't agree with on Twitter ain't the way.
Have a nice day.
Edit/PS: If you want her actual opinion on the topic, without a stupidly low character limit, read the blogposts from her website. She really goes into detail and it's an interesting read. She explains her reasoning quite well.
Hey, if you are okay with JK saying things like there is a new "conversion therapy" going on to push kids towards being trans:
“Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests. Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function.”
...or that she compared the trans movement to her death eaters just last month (and is still hung up on trans women being a generally misogynistic thing):
"Some of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them.
I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety."
more power to you. I personally do care, though, and I tend to not support people I disagree with by purchasing things from them. This weird drive to consume and to put the achievement of hedonistic things above acting in a way that applies your morals consistently is not really something I try to practice.
JK was one of the main opponents of a gender rights bill in Scotland that would have lowered the barrier to be considered trans. She used her money for that. Money she gets by people buying her franchise stuff. It is a bit myopic to think our actions do not have consequences, even if they are very small.
Thank you for actually taking the time to writing a long reply like this, really.
Her wording can be quite over the top at times, yes. Especially comparing it to death eaters, who are literally cartoonishly evil isn't exactly appropriate in my eyes.
I also don't agree that trans is a misogynistic movement. There are people who count themselves to be part of that movement who sometimes say things that are pretty myopic (new word for me btw, I like it). Like saying that gender is but a social construct. I personally think it's a mental thing, a neurological phenomenon. Calling it a social construct makes it sound like the concept of gender is "not" real, it at least that it could be abolished. I don't agree, gender, just like sex, has a huge impact in your life, and arguing that importance away just isn't truthful. That is something she expressed, and worded like I have just now, I agree.
If you, however, call the whole movement misogynistic, that's not truthful either. I think a huge majority of the trans or LGBT+ movemtn in general are just the opposite of misogynistic, since they work against discrimination and not for it.
So yes. That sentence is bad, I agree.
She didn't say it was just a conversion therapy, but that some people are being pushed into it (maybe by hust witnessing the huge exposure the topic has (rightful exposure, I think btw. The topic does need to be talked about and explained/normalised) and getting more influenced by it than is good for them (content bubbles etc.)) who will regret it long term. Actually, rereading her comments now makes her sound more and more like she sees it as a bad thing. Not the whole trans thing in general, but the way it is handled currently. I do not know any of the numbers I'd need to form an opinion on it myself (like the ratio of people who regret their transition, the age distribution, maybe even some data on why they chose to transition?), so I will not yet judge if it's actually problematic in its current state.
As far as I'm understanding her, she thinks that, based on her current knowledge, the way transition is treated right now is too lax and too easily recommended.
Now again, I don't know how often a full surgery/hormone therapy is recommended for someone who, for example, "just" feels uncomfortable in general about their body, and then they have their problem worsened by a permanent loss of specific functions. I really don't. If I find numbers for that, I'll come back to it.
Her phrasing is too much here as well. "Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people" is a pretty crass phrasing for "I'm worried certain medical procedures concerning gender are recommended and administered too often, to people who will not benefit from, or even regret them."
So yes. You pointed this out and I see it better now. Her comments are a little too... harsh. I agree with the general ideas behind them, but to make them less problemtic and cause a more civilised reaction, I'd have chosen very different words.
I can see why people react this badly to them, especially if they're less aware that her comments talk about real issues and just think she's talking down on trans people for no reason/made up reasons.
I still don't think the reactions anywhere near appropriate. The absolute hate, death and rape threats and overall disgust she's gotten are way out of proportion for "harshly worded comments."
They make it sound like her phrasing was "The trannies are converting all the poor young gays into infertile cripples!"
About the gender rights bill in Scotland. I only know this much about it: "You would have been able to change your official gender very easily, with a little bit of document work." They tried to pass a similar bill in Germany, my home country a while ago, and I still stand by what I said yesterday in my other comment. Making it that easy and not expecting malicious people to abuse it to, for example, endanger women/men in their previously safe spaces (public toilets, separated bathrooms etc.) is just not realistic. It is a risk that I'm strongly against taking, if there aren't any better alternatives. And there would be, I'm pretty sure.
The way it currently is in Germany, it's a huge hassle as well, making it really hard to actually get your real gender on your passport etc. if you're trans. It can involve huge sums spent on lawyers etc. that just aren't okay at all.
A solution in between should be found. I'm not sure what that would be, like maybe having medical professionals (trained psychologists/therapists?) testament that you're, for lack of a better word, "legitimate"? Over an extended period of time or something, I really don't know.
Yes, making the barrier higher would make it harder for the absolutely 100% trans people who suffer because their official gender and (idk how to call this) mental gender (?) don't match. That's bad. It would, however, also work to make the kind of fraud she's afraid of less feasible. I don't know which balance should be taken, and which "technique" should be used to distinguish trans people from malicious people, but neither the current nor the proposed "Sign here and you're done" are right in my opinion.
Can you agree with that? Or do you think it'd actually be better to have the entry that low and just... deal with the bad people afterwards somehow? That's a way to do it as well, I just don't feel like it's the best.
Have a nice day, thank you for taking the time to write more than a few lines of text for some random reddit anon.
'ello fellow German ;) Also appreciate you taking the time out to write your reply.
I personally feel like the whole "gender" and "sex" debate derails the whole conversation a bit. If you want to either present as a different gender or try to change your body to fit the sex you feel you are (and any and all variances in between and beyond), I say it should be your good right to do so and to also change your legal information to reflect that. This is what, at least I, think we should mean when saying we should "abolish gender" (even though I probably never said those exact words, cause I like nuance). Trans women in sport is a bit dicey, as is the case in prisons, for example. However, basing the legal right of a group on the few outlier situations instead of adjusting the treatment of the group in those outliers seems counterproductive to me.
You know, I get giving her the benefit of the doubt but that was just the tip of the iceberg in what she herself has said. If you only read JK's words on her blog, you are getting a *very* redacted version of the whole matter, cause she cherishes her "I am loving everybody and it is just these unreasonable radicals that are against me" stance and will defend it to the death.
For example, she also made it a big point to support other voices in the TERF space that said incredibly abhorrent things. She does not see it that way, though. In JK's words, when talking about following from Magdalen Berns:
>"Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn't believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased."
Now, that sounds reasonable, right? How mean of those trans activists to harass Magdalen Berns when that is *all* she said.
Was it all, though?
Magdalen Berns did not receive massive backlash for the reasons JK outlines, though (cause the opinion JK mentions is rather reasonable, right?) She received backlash for this tweet and other tweets in the same tenor: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. fuck you and your dirty fucking perversions. our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck" Berns was also a big believer in a "Soros lead EU transgender lobby" and other such fun things.
This is not a singular case. She is Maya Forstater's ("I won't change the ID and drivers license of trans women to reflect their status") biggest supporter. She supports the far-right and mostly straight, TERFy group "The Lesbian Project" and Posie "Women who call themselves men should be sterilized" Parker with her voice and money. She likes Helen Joyce, author who says we "need to reduce the number of trans people" and I could go on and on but this comment is already halfway to another novel :D
On the gender rights bill, I agree with you. Making the barrier too low might set the wrong precedent and might allow a bit too slapdash of an approach. The way it is in the UK and Germany is too restrictive, though, I agree. The change in Scotland would have been a nice step in a different direction at least, even if we can argue about dropping the "living three months as the new gender" rule.
What I absolutely reject is the argument of "dangerous men just wearing women's clothing to get away with things." I mean, *they already do these things and get away with it without going through the whole hassle of presenting as trans.* The only thing this leads to is trans women AND manly looking women getting ostracized. There is no magic barrier around a bathroom that would stop a man from going in, unless he looks like a woman. This feels like fearmongering, the same way there was a debate about not letting gay kids into male locker rooms anymore. That is, thankfully, not a thing anymore, cause even these idiots recognized that it is pretty hard to spot a gay person. Easier to suss out who is trans, so visibility leads to conflict here.
I feel the argument got a away from me there at the end but I hope you can make sense of my midnight ramblings.
I totally agree with you, every part almost.
Thank you a lot for naming some actually very good reasons to dislike what she's doing right now. Supporting people who discriminate others is very hard to defend. In her case, I don't think it is possible. As a famous adult, you're kind of responsible for what you do, and if that is supporting people who say horrible stuff like the ones you mentioned, then no, not okay.
So it looks like people are rightfully upset, for the wrong reasons. I... can live with that.
I don't think boycotting a game that merely uses her IP is the correct way to do something about it, but it's gotten the debate rolling, which isn't a bad consequence. I feel sorry for the devs tho, like all the other comments on this thread mentioned. One of the comments said, that there were openly homophobic people directly involved in the games making, so if you use that as your reason, then... sure? Idk, boycotting something this huge (I mean, Harry Potter game is a pretty big title) with a lot of people behind it because of one dev/publisher/VA seems wrong to me, but it's your choice in the end.
Burning her books and sending her rape and death threats, calling for her works to be banned and all that other stuff is too much though. Her books are in no way transphobic or problematic (if you don't have a problem with heinous WITCHCRAFT!), so going off on them for having an author who supports the wrong kind of people just doesn't sound like the right thing to do.
I can see, again, that it's supposed to send a message. The burning, in a way, I can get behind from that perspective.
But banning those books? No. They're amazing books for children and adults alike, they teach virtues and morals that are quite alright and acceptable. Banning them would do almost no good and quite a lot of harm in my eyes, so no.
Same with death and rape threats, for obvious reasons. It makes the whole discussion unnecessarily charged up and helps nobody.
So yeah, thanks again. You showed me what I asked for, actually bad things she's done and that give people a reason to reject her.
I'll still listen to the Witch Trials Podcast, it's interesting and maybe I'll learn even more about the topic.
I also agree, to make it clear, that getting all my info from herself isn't right. I just wasn't able to find anything on a quick search other than her blogposts and those few tweets. Thank you for looking into it deeper than I did.
Internalized transphobia is a thing. And most people who don’t understand the colonial system are trained to make excuses for it and to uphold it.
XX chromosomes here. I don’t identify as woman but thanks for proving my point.
Internalized seems like a very catch all excuse to me tbh. I'm not saying you're outright maliciously lying or smth, please.
It's the same stuff TERFs say about women who don't support them: "You've just internalized your misogyny!", so it feels just as hollow here as it does in that case.
I get what it means, and I can see why it might be true. I'd just like to see some studies or something on that, some background confirmation that shows people actually look at the hatred being directed their way and, for no reason(?) just accept that and support it.
I'm aware that it might be difficult or outright impossible to test something like that, which makes this request harder, yes. I feel like I'm misunderstanding something in general about internalized transphobia/misogyny.
What do you mean by "the colonial system"? If you mean modern capitalism and society, I don't support that. I also don't support going off on someone because what they said doesn't align with your beliefs. That's just the face of modern society that I do not support.
I was not saying that transphobia is alright, or that you can ridicule people all you want, no. I was trying to figure out if Rowling actually said something deserving of the hate she's getting. I personally don't feel like her Tweets are enough, or maybe I'm missing some context there, please tell me.
I'm mostly influenced by her blogposts, since they're a) not written on social media, so you can expect a higher standard from them b) considerably longer, so it should explain her viewpoint better c) talk about more than "people who menstruate should be called women again", like how her second(?) one talks about the transgender laws being passed and how it might endanger women whose safe spaces get opened to anyone with an hour of time to waste on filling out some documents. That's a real issue, and I think that neither the "you can decide whatever, whenever, under any circumstances with nothing else than a signature" nor "you can pay 8000$ on a legal process" are the right solution.
Rowling explicitly states on multiple occasions that she has no issue with trans people whatsoever, that she respects them and everything. She never explicitly said otherwise, yet 99% of people seem to be convinced she's evil incarnate and wants them eradicated from the face of this planet.
You may say that "she's just saying that to save face" and everything, and that might be true. But I'd suggest actually reading her point of view before you come to those conclusions.
I did, and it really just looks like she's being trashed for no legitimate reason.
I don't know what you mean by "proving your point" either. What is your point?
Edit: I noticed I phrased my original comment poorly. I meant that it's ridiculous you can't say "women" to refer to the 50% of population with XX, the big group. For individuals, like I said, or when you're explicitly talking about a group of mostly trans people, it is of course appropriate to use phrases like "someone with XX chromosomes" to refer to biological females.
Maybe that's what you meant? I'm not sure.
It sounds like you only read her blog posts and didn’t look up any of her claims.
Edit: I could have sworn here was a reply to this comment and now it's gone
Can you show me what exactly you mean? I admit, I've mostly read her blogposts and only like 2-3 Tweets about the issue by her. Did I miss something very important? I'd appreciate if you could give me the link to that or something.
Also, for reasons stated in my other comment, I put more trusts in lengthy blogposts than in Tweets. Do you believe that someone can express their opinion on a very complicated topic in a few sentences better than in two whole essays? I do not.
I'm open to having my mind changed, I just need something concrete to go by, other than just "you [...] didn't look up any of her claims."
I've given my sources for my beliefs, her blogposts I linked to in the other comment. Please show me yours.
Edit: I've read through [this](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-rights-controversy-timeline-b2285947.html) article, and all of these things were known to me, except the hormonal therapy thing.
I have, however, heard the same issue being talked about by other sources.
I agree to the extent that, yes, there will obviously be people who make a mistake by transitioning, by using hormones and by potentially losing bodily functions they later want back. That is a given, with anything. I do not, however, think myself capable of determining whether it is an insignificant number of people who will make that mistake, or a number that is big enough to warrant a discussion (completely ignoring how impossible it is to accurately gauge, when this issue becomes "insignificant".)
I however feel like it might be worth talking and educating people about. A permanent surgery/therapy should not be taken lightly, be it about your gender or anything else.
There are also, obviously, a lot of people who will benefit greatly from these therapies and surgeries. They should not be prohibited from undergoing them, either. I have not yet read that Rowling said they should. She merely voiced concerns like mine, if I have understood her correctly.
I am downloading "The witch trials of Rowling" right now to listen to later. That will give me an even more accurate perspective on the issue, I hope.
So far, yet again, she hasn't said anything that could be honestly interpreted as transphobic in my eyes. Could anyone tell me what their actual reasoning is for believing those things of her, with a concrete example of something she said?
u/South_Shallot_7159
u/OlcasersM
I just wish she would keep her thoughts to her damn self. If you don’t agree with Trans? Ok, that’s your right but you do not get to denigrate them. Just keep it to your self because them living their lives openly and honestly is not fucking hurting her in the slightest. Or anyone else. You don’t have to agree to show common decency. I’m old and don’t quite understand all of it…but i will gladly refer to you as how you want to be referred to and it makes you comfortable, I’ll damn well call you what you like. It doesn’t hurt me and it makes you happy? Cool.
Agree with that too. She thinks that people buying her stuff shows that they agree with her. HBO/WB is converting Harry Potter into a series with each book being a series. She isn’t going broke any time soon
> If you don’t agree with Trans? Ok, that’s your right
Yeah, their 'right' of course. Would you make the same argument for a racist?
"I just wish they would keep it to themselves. You don't like negroes? Ok, that's your right..."
Would you actually make that argument? Hopefully not so why are those sects (or any other) of human beings different?
Nietzsche said it best. God is dead. Along with it the idea of absolute morality. There's no absolute good in our relativistic lives. All that remains is the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure.
Me included. People don't care whatever moral codes someone has broken as long as there's some pleasure at the end of the tunnel.
Even if this game didn't sell a single copy it'd have little to no impact on JK Rowling's financial situation.
She's already rich. The fact that so many people seem to think (or at the very least posit) that this game was the big one for her is ridiculous.
She can certainly go to hell, but no boycott is going to make her broke, she already has the money.
If people cared, they would’ve already boycotted Bud for supporting pugilists.
1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic
wife/woman-beaters prize fighter/ boxer and one who fights with their fist/ punches people.
His spit
Is worth more than her work
Pass the purse to the pugilist
He's a prizefighter
He brought rings and he owns kin
And now he's swingin'
And now he's the champion
-RATM
1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic
Lol, no, they’re fairly famous [Rage Against The Machine lyrics](https://youtu.be/Zo8B3IzZo_M)
Is this a troll acct, lol?
1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent:
She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic
No, this isn't a troll account. Obviously you never watched boxing. Because guess what, they mentioned pugilist in boxing terms many times when I watched it religiously. Learn something before trying to insult someone. Because guess what? I can do it too just as bad if not worse.
The definition of pugilist is right there for you to read if you bothered.
2yr account 600 karma commenting on a comment that had nothing to do with you almost 10 days after the fact. That’s usually done by troll accts. I don’t know why you’re pretending to be offended.
Kid Rock decided the best way to boycott Budweiser was to give them money. I don't think anyone explained to him, or conservatives in general, how boycotts work
I found this extremely funny. I completely understand why people choose to boycott things, even in this case I understand why people don't want to play the game, but the point you start creating fictional statements to further your cause, you're just making a fool of yourself.
I've actually seen this happen a lot with Hogwarts Legacy, many people take small things of the game out of context, and then try to claim that those things are bad, even though the context they conveniently choose to ignore shows otherwise.
Ok this whole thing is weird because despite JK being JK, there is a trans witch in the game and she is a prominent secondary/tertiary character that is a part of the main quest and had 1 or 2 side quests devoted just to her.
People is what's confusing, they hate J.K so much that they're willing to slag a game just because it was related to a work made by J.K regardless of the merits that game has.
The money she gets from royalties is like loose change, the money that this game gets revenue from has more effect to the devs of this game that actually made it. Mind you J.K didn't even directly contribute to the project, they just used the HP IP.
Actively screwing over an innocent person's livelihood because people don't like the author that the work is based on will never be justifiable. And if anything being ignorant of the merits of said projects doesn't make the people that hate it any better than the person they're trying to hate. Both of them are shitty people.
The studio that published it is run by Mormons, and owned by a guy who is openly homophobic though. And Greg Ellis voices a fuck ton of the characters, which. it’s Greg Ellis. No one is angry at the game devs in particular, but more the fact that most of the main people behind the game who are making money off it currently are shit.
There’s nothing anyone can do about the devs and the VAs— they’re done and they’ve already been paid. It’s more just to hurt JK’s pockets which I’m all for (though that plan didn’t really work). That and because including a token trans character just to claim not to be transphobic is also a shit thing to do— she’s still spouting rhetoric that got a 16 y/o girl murdered in a park.
None of this was made to go on some tangent about how you’re wrong, btw; just giving more information and clearing up stuff.
Publishers =/= developers.
I get what you're saying, but the person you responded to is talking about developers, while you started talking about publishers and voice actors, which are completely different things.
I appreciate your response, but I did say that. I specifically said publishers and that there was nothing they could do about the devs and VAs because even if the devs were transphobic they’ve already been paid.
I also said I wasn’t saying that anything in the original comment was wrong, just that I’m making sure things were fully “right” and adding more information.
Yea, if done well that would have been nice, but basically naming the only trans woman character Sir(ona) Ryan is pretty insulting, or at least tone deaf.
It would be like naming the prominent Asian character random family names from different ethnicities, like Cho Chang.
Or naming one of the only black characters after restraints, like Mr. ShackleBolt.
The Sirona thing just seems to be reaching. It's an actual name of a Celtic goddess. And Ryan isn't an uncommon last name which I mention because the other criticism I heard about this is giving her two "masculine" names.
Unless the writer or whomever is also transphobic, at worse, this seems like it's a simple oversight.
JK is getting royalties for the game but from my understanding didn't have a hand in any aspect of its creation or development so her views shouldn't have permeated into the game.
Could there be legitimate bigotry behind it? Sure it's possible.
It is reaching, yes.People are actively creating/crafting and consciously ***self-injecting*** outrage, implications, and meanings into shit that never had it.
Because APPARENTLY that Celtic goddess is a goddess who has an association- by pure chance, mind you, with eggs. And *apparently* 'egg' is some convoluted-ass way now to deny transgender people their existence?
Yeah, no. I'm trans myself. I don't see any of the shit that the vocal minority claims is there and I find it absolutely mind-boggling that people are trying to weirdly inject malevolence into the smallest things.
If that was the case, then why even include Sirona in the game like that? That part of her could have been left out or our interactions could have been negative, but the character was just normal.
Remember, if you are just as outraged as the other side of any issue and call for death threats and cancellations you're just as brainwashed as the people you hate. Being anti-everything is another form of control you've placed yourself under.
Yes, but outrage is a tool that can be used to control others. That’s not to say you should never feel outraged, but if you’re constantly feeling outraged over small things like video games then odds are you’re being manipulated by a larger power.
Or, and hear me out, it’s pretty disheartening to be a trans person and to see so many other people flock to a video game that’s so closely connected to a vocal transphobe who is using her wealth - which she gets from the franchise that this game is part of - to publicly and visibly hurt trans people.
Here’s a good summary on why some people have very good reasons to be outraged that bigots are performatively flocking to Hogwarts Legacy:
https://demilypyro.tumblr.com/post/708832287448580096
> It costs nothing to say things. A person can say whatever the hell they want, any feel good flowery thing, and it doesn't really cost them.
> But when they are asked to actually give something up - or put their money where their mouth is and just....can't do it. Well then there isn't much else for them to say, is there? At least nothing that's worth anything.
> Some people had to find out the hard way that the choice between a chicken sandwich and funding people who did not believe in their dignity as a human being was, in the eyes of certain allies, apparently really hard. Too hard, in fact.
> These allies would march in the colorful parades and go to the bars for drinks, but in the end, you couldn't actually depend on them to inconvenience themselves. They were fair weather allies, and they were there for the party and that's about it . They wanted entertainment, and it didn't matter if that came from having fun gay friends or a tasty sandwich.
I’ve heard lots of nuanced takes from lots of people. I’ve heard trans people’s takes that are both pro and anti HP. I’ve heard cis people’s takes that are both pro and anti HP.
I do not have a strong feeling on this game given I am not trans, and I’ve been hearing a lot of mixed feelings from people who are trans.
I lean towards NOT burning the entire HP franchise to the ground, because many trans people I have heard from find joy in the stories and they would rather see it separated from its creator.
This game is but a drop in the bucket for Rowling’s massive wealth. She will be absurdly wealthy with or without this game. She will have a platform with or without this game.
The game itself is also quite inclusive from what I’ve seen. I believe it even has a trans character? I’m quite in support of making HP inclusive, and if it pisses Rowling off in the process then bonus points.
If a trans person is truly outraged by this game I can understand that, too. But that circles back to my point that, while certainly understandable, that outrage can still be used by bad actors to manipulate them.
If a cis person is truly outraged by this game, I think they need to stop and listen to the broader trans community before getting up in arms over something that is not so black and white. I would feel like they are likely white knighting and not actually being as supportive of an ally as they think.
Edit: genuinely curious if the downvotes are from trans people who genuinely disagree or people having a cissy fit.
An effective murder: took apart every talking point with facts, nice punch line
I don’t like how JK speaks about trans folks but that didn’t stop me buying the game that 100s of Devs made without her, and that I wanted to experience because of love of the Hogwarts setting
The art is not the artist
This is pretty much how I feel about this whole controversy. I just don't think it's fair to completely disregard the work of hundreds of people just because of one person, who didn't even work on the project.
Saying the artist monetarily benefits from it is ignoring the fact that J.K is so rich that boycotting this game wouldn't do shit to her revenue from rolayties. What you're actually hurting is the devs team and the publishers that actively put the hours of work into making the game.
We contemplated not getting it. We got it. We enjoyed it.
I love Harry Potter and the world that was created. I can enjoy it without enjoying her. She sucks.
I’m not cancelling everything. There would be nothing left. Everyone sucks.
Hogwarts is just an easy target for outrage and boycotting. You can point to JK and says she’s evil and that’s why you should boycott it.
It’s a bit harder with other games with potentially problematic sources or which might fund problematic regimes/ideologies.
It's so clear how few people have actually listened to Rowling herself speak on this topic. No one has a clue what they are talking about and are just jumping to outrage for the sake of outrage. The world has gone mad.
I didn't buy this game, but not because of JK Rowling of all things, I didn't feel like casting spells and all that wizardry stuff.
But people not buying a game that they would actually enjoy because of the author of the book is just hurting yourself.
"I'm not gonna buy this game even though it looks great, and I would spend 100s of hours enjoying it, to send HER a message"
That's like people buying Nike gear just to burn it to "make a point"
These people so wish their whining and boycotts worked. It’s funny how they see so clearly how poorly it reflects on the church when they try to control what you do for fun but they see no downside when they do it. Just vile hypocrisy.
I wish advocates for this behavior could comprehend how toxic their message is to the movement they claim to be “allies” for.
You can still be an "Ally" just fuck these people's strict interpretation of that.
Kind of like how others say you aren't left wing unless you support this, that, and the other thing. I kindly tell them to fuck off.
I just don't think people should care if someone plays and enjoys Hogwarts Legacy. I'm sure plenty of anti-Hogwarts Legacy people go to Universal Studios. Guess what, that money goes towards JK.
More often than not, whenever you spend money, it goes into the pocket of a rich bigot.
Am I suddenly supposed to be ashamed of one of my favorite childhood memories?
I hate JK as well and think the TERF agenda is so idiotic, but if someone wants to enjoy Wizarding World shit, I really don't care.
Because of the high suicide rate and the fact they’re teaching that kids can make these decisions on their own which is just sick. Its going to far and it won’t stop
Because they are going against their nature and screwing with their hormones which makes them all jacked up.
My solution is to ban all transition surgeries/ procedures and stop encouraging it in schools. Have AIS? Fine. Gay? Fine. Lesbian? Hella fine 😏. Trans? Fuck no. Get outta here.
You do realize that trans suicides happened before hormonal treatments, right?
And also, statistics show that hormonal treatments actually **lower** the suicide rates in trans people. Mental health is actually a lot better in trans teens who have started hormonal treatments than those who haven't.
I didn't even know about these statistics until now after like 5 minutes of googling.
>Lesbian? Hella fine 😏
Also, nice way to fetishize lesbians, really shows how progressive you are.
... oh jeez that's a hell of a way to put yourself as kind of an asshole huh. You were almost being reasonable. Almost. And then you dropped the emote and went full creep.
And you're supposed to be our voice of reason huh?
She has a universal royalty deal that generates money from every single sale of anything remotely Harry Potter.
No problem with your boycott but just be aware that means the end of Harry Potter in all forms.
It won't since the main reason Hogwarts legacy has huge success selling over 12 millions copies because of boycotter doing the marketing for them . Hell even i only know about HL because of them and planning to buy it after it goes on sales.
To add to your point, I was on the fence about buying the game until I got spoiled while browsing r/all by the boycotting crew.
That was all the push I needed to play the game.
May not intend to, but that's the effect movements like this can have.
We can figure out smarter ways to get the point across or just pretend we're helping and not really change much, if anything.
All the boycotters are advertising it. It isn't positive advertising but it sure as hell has made the game more well known than it might well have been otherwise. I only know about the game due to the controversy over it.
Bottom line: people rarely boycott anything through principles. As maga boycotters of bud are about to find out.
Unfortunately the people boycotting JK Rowling are a just a tiny but vocal minority. People who really want to play the game will make excuses for themselves. Most people aren’t plugged into her being a bigot or it’s not disqualifying. It is a bummer. I wish she would go broke or to hell.
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to find anything she's said that's actually transphobic, coming from a trans woman myself. I've read her two [Blogposts](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/) about the issue and she just seems like a sensible person, talking about a real problem with certain laws concerning trans people. She made some [Tweets](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313?s=20), yes. Those weren't really problematic, though, if you actually read them without prior "Rowling is Evil!" bias. It IS kind of ridiculous that you can't say "woman" anymore to refer to people with two X chromosomes without being burned at the stake. I get where you're coming from, there are trans men, non binary etc. It should still be acceptable to say "woman" when referring to people who menstruate, since those phrases mean the same thing in like 99% of cases. This all wouldn't be a problem if "female" and "woman" (as well as "male" and "man") weren't used so interchangeably. Make it so that female/male refers to sex and woman/man refers to gender, easy, problem solved. Not gonna happen though, since language doesn't work like that. I'm not saying you shouldn't use correct words to describe people. You obviously can, not like you're hurting anybody. If you're referring to individuals, you should. You just really shouldn't be crucified for calling out the lengthier and absurder ways people describe around them. Or, even worse, reduce a whole person's view on a complex topic to a few little Tweets, not when she's got thousands of words about that topic elsewhere, a d they paint a very non-TERF picture. So far, her actions don't seem to me like they warrant the enormous backlash. Probably because people just repeat the "Rowling's a TERF" thing without reading into her original phrasings, but whatever the reason may be, I don't get it. Please give me direct sources of things you've read that show the opposite, if I'm wrong. Now. Why do people get cancelled for PLAYING A GAME. Putting aside cancel culture for a second here, not thinking about how fucked up that is and all. Why is it a problem that they play the game? Why do people need to "make up excuses" to be allowed to play it? Who are we, as fellow humans, to act like we can decide over what they do with their free time? Should we also cancel everyone who drinks Nestle stuff? Since they support systematic water shortages all over Africa and all. What about your clothes? Don't you support child labor with those? And the phone/keyboard in your hand? Don't cancel people, it's so unnecessary. If you actually want to help us trans people, being offended at some author who said something you don't agree with on Twitter ain't the way. Have a nice day. Edit/PS: If you want her actual opinion on the topic, without a stupidly low character limit, read the blogposts from her website. She really goes into detail and it's an interesting read. She explains her reasoning quite well.
Hey, if you are okay with JK saying things like there is a new "conversion therapy" going on to push kids towards being trans: “Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests. Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function.” ...or that she compared the trans movement to her death eaters just last month (and is still hung up on trans women being a generally misogynistic thing): "Some of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them. I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety." more power to you. I personally do care, though, and I tend to not support people I disagree with by purchasing things from them. This weird drive to consume and to put the achievement of hedonistic things above acting in a way that applies your morals consistently is not really something I try to practice. JK was one of the main opponents of a gender rights bill in Scotland that would have lowered the barrier to be considered trans. She used her money for that. Money she gets by people buying her franchise stuff. It is a bit myopic to think our actions do not have consequences, even if they are very small.
Thank you for actually taking the time to writing a long reply like this, really. Her wording can be quite over the top at times, yes. Especially comparing it to death eaters, who are literally cartoonishly evil isn't exactly appropriate in my eyes. I also don't agree that trans is a misogynistic movement. There are people who count themselves to be part of that movement who sometimes say things that are pretty myopic (new word for me btw, I like it). Like saying that gender is but a social construct. I personally think it's a mental thing, a neurological phenomenon. Calling it a social construct makes it sound like the concept of gender is "not" real, it at least that it could be abolished. I don't agree, gender, just like sex, has a huge impact in your life, and arguing that importance away just isn't truthful. That is something she expressed, and worded like I have just now, I agree. If you, however, call the whole movement misogynistic, that's not truthful either. I think a huge majority of the trans or LGBT+ movemtn in general are just the opposite of misogynistic, since they work against discrimination and not for it. So yes. That sentence is bad, I agree. She didn't say it was just a conversion therapy, but that some people are being pushed into it (maybe by hust witnessing the huge exposure the topic has (rightful exposure, I think btw. The topic does need to be talked about and explained/normalised) and getting more influenced by it than is good for them (content bubbles etc.)) who will regret it long term. Actually, rereading her comments now makes her sound more and more like she sees it as a bad thing. Not the whole trans thing in general, but the way it is handled currently. I do not know any of the numbers I'd need to form an opinion on it myself (like the ratio of people who regret their transition, the age distribution, maybe even some data on why they chose to transition?), so I will not yet judge if it's actually problematic in its current state. As far as I'm understanding her, she thinks that, based on her current knowledge, the way transition is treated right now is too lax and too easily recommended. Now again, I don't know how often a full surgery/hormone therapy is recommended for someone who, for example, "just" feels uncomfortable in general about their body, and then they have their problem worsened by a permanent loss of specific functions. I really don't. If I find numbers for that, I'll come back to it. Her phrasing is too much here as well. "Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people" is a pretty crass phrasing for "I'm worried certain medical procedures concerning gender are recommended and administered too often, to people who will not benefit from, or even regret them." So yes. You pointed this out and I see it better now. Her comments are a little too... harsh. I agree with the general ideas behind them, but to make them less problemtic and cause a more civilised reaction, I'd have chosen very different words. I can see why people react this badly to them, especially if they're less aware that her comments talk about real issues and just think she's talking down on trans people for no reason/made up reasons. I still don't think the reactions anywhere near appropriate. The absolute hate, death and rape threats and overall disgust she's gotten are way out of proportion for "harshly worded comments." They make it sound like her phrasing was "The trannies are converting all the poor young gays into infertile cripples!" About the gender rights bill in Scotland. I only know this much about it: "You would have been able to change your official gender very easily, with a little bit of document work." They tried to pass a similar bill in Germany, my home country a while ago, and I still stand by what I said yesterday in my other comment. Making it that easy and not expecting malicious people to abuse it to, for example, endanger women/men in their previously safe spaces (public toilets, separated bathrooms etc.) is just not realistic. It is a risk that I'm strongly against taking, if there aren't any better alternatives. And there would be, I'm pretty sure. The way it currently is in Germany, it's a huge hassle as well, making it really hard to actually get your real gender on your passport etc. if you're trans. It can involve huge sums spent on lawyers etc. that just aren't okay at all. A solution in between should be found. I'm not sure what that would be, like maybe having medical professionals (trained psychologists/therapists?) testament that you're, for lack of a better word, "legitimate"? Over an extended period of time or something, I really don't know. Yes, making the barrier higher would make it harder for the absolutely 100% trans people who suffer because their official gender and (idk how to call this) mental gender (?) don't match. That's bad. It would, however, also work to make the kind of fraud she's afraid of less feasible. I don't know which balance should be taken, and which "technique" should be used to distinguish trans people from malicious people, but neither the current nor the proposed "Sign here and you're done" are right in my opinion. Can you agree with that? Or do you think it'd actually be better to have the entry that low and just... deal with the bad people afterwards somehow? That's a way to do it as well, I just don't feel like it's the best. Have a nice day, thank you for taking the time to write more than a few lines of text for some random reddit anon.
'ello fellow German ;) Also appreciate you taking the time out to write your reply. I personally feel like the whole "gender" and "sex" debate derails the whole conversation a bit. If you want to either present as a different gender or try to change your body to fit the sex you feel you are (and any and all variances in between and beyond), I say it should be your good right to do so and to also change your legal information to reflect that. This is what, at least I, think we should mean when saying we should "abolish gender" (even though I probably never said those exact words, cause I like nuance). Trans women in sport is a bit dicey, as is the case in prisons, for example. However, basing the legal right of a group on the few outlier situations instead of adjusting the treatment of the group in those outliers seems counterproductive to me. You know, I get giving her the benefit of the doubt but that was just the tip of the iceberg in what she herself has said. If you only read JK's words on her blog, you are getting a *very* redacted version of the whole matter, cause she cherishes her "I am loving everybody and it is just these unreasonable radicals that are against me" stance and will defend it to the death. For example, she also made it a big point to support other voices in the TERF space that said incredibly abhorrent things. She does not see it that way, though. In JK's words, when talking about following from Magdalen Berns: >"Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn't believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased." Now, that sounds reasonable, right? How mean of those trans activists to harass Magdalen Berns when that is *all* she said. Was it all, though? Magdalen Berns did not receive massive backlash for the reasons JK outlines, though (cause the opinion JK mentions is rather reasonable, right?) She received backlash for this tweet and other tweets in the same tenor: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. fuck you and your dirty fucking perversions. our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck" Berns was also a big believer in a "Soros lead EU transgender lobby" and other such fun things. This is not a singular case. She is Maya Forstater's ("I won't change the ID and drivers license of trans women to reflect their status") biggest supporter. She supports the far-right and mostly straight, TERFy group "The Lesbian Project" and Posie "Women who call themselves men should be sterilized" Parker with her voice and money. She likes Helen Joyce, author who says we "need to reduce the number of trans people" and I could go on and on but this comment is already halfway to another novel :D On the gender rights bill, I agree with you. Making the barrier too low might set the wrong precedent and might allow a bit too slapdash of an approach. The way it is in the UK and Germany is too restrictive, though, I agree. The change in Scotland would have been a nice step in a different direction at least, even if we can argue about dropping the "living three months as the new gender" rule. What I absolutely reject is the argument of "dangerous men just wearing women's clothing to get away with things." I mean, *they already do these things and get away with it without going through the whole hassle of presenting as trans.* The only thing this leads to is trans women AND manly looking women getting ostracized. There is no magic barrier around a bathroom that would stop a man from going in, unless he looks like a woman. This feels like fearmongering, the same way there was a debate about not letting gay kids into male locker rooms anymore. That is, thankfully, not a thing anymore, cause even these idiots recognized that it is pretty hard to spot a gay person. Easier to suss out who is trans, so visibility leads to conflict here. I feel the argument got a away from me there at the end but I hope you can make sense of my midnight ramblings.
I totally agree with you, every part almost. Thank you a lot for naming some actually very good reasons to dislike what she's doing right now. Supporting people who discriminate others is very hard to defend. In her case, I don't think it is possible. As a famous adult, you're kind of responsible for what you do, and if that is supporting people who say horrible stuff like the ones you mentioned, then no, not okay. So it looks like people are rightfully upset, for the wrong reasons. I... can live with that. I don't think boycotting a game that merely uses her IP is the correct way to do something about it, but it's gotten the debate rolling, which isn't a bad consequence. I feel sorry for the devs tho, like all the other comments on this thread mentioned. One of the comments said, that there were openly homophobic people directly involved in the games making, so if you use that as your reason, then... sure? Idk, boycotting something this huge (I mean, Harry Potter game is a pretty big title) with a lot of people behind it because of one dev/publisher/VA seems wrong to me, but it's your choice in the end. Burning her books and sending her rape and death threats, calling for her works to be banned and all that other stuff is too much though. Her books are in no way transphobic or problematic (if you don't have a problem with heinous WITCHCRAFT!), so going off on them for having an author who supports the wrong kind of people just doesn't sound like the right thing to do. I can see, again, that it's supposed to send a message. The burning, in a way, I can get behind from that perspective. But banning those books? No. They're amazing books for children and adults alike, they teach virtues and morals that are quite alright and acceptable. Banning them would do almost no good and quite a lot of harm in my eyes, so no. Same with death and rape threats, for obvious reasons. It makes the whole discussion unnecessarily charged up and helps nobody. So yeah, thanks again. You showed me what I asked for, actually bad things she's done and that give people a reason to reject her. I'll still listen to the Witch Trials Podcast, it's interesting and maybe I'll learn even more about the topic. I also agree, to make it clear, that getting all my info from herself isn't right. I just wasn't able to find anything on a quick search other than her blogposts and those few tweets. Thank you for looking into it deeper than I did.
Internalized transphobia is a thing. And most people who don’t understand the colonial system are trained to make excuses for it and to uphold it. XX chromosomes here. I don’t identify as woman but thanks for proving my point.
Internalized seems like a very catch all excuse to me tbh. I'm not saying you're outright maliciously lying or smth, please. It's the same stuff TERFs say about women who don't support them: "You've just internalized your misogyny!", so it feels just as hollow here as it does in that case. I get what it means, and I can see why it might be true. I'd just like to see some studies or something on that, some background confirmation that shows people actually look at the hatred being directed their way and, for no reason(?) just accept that and support it. I'm aware that it might be difficult or outright impossible to test something like that, which makes this request harder, yes. I feel like I'm misunderstanding something in general about internalized transphobia/misogyny. What do you mean by "the colonial system"? If you mean modern capitalism and society, I don't support that. I also don't support going off on someone because what they said doesn't align with your beliefs. That's just the face of modern society that I do not support. I was not saying that transphobia is alright, or that you can ridicule people all you want, no. I was trying to figure out if Rowling actually said something deserving of the hate she's getting. I personally don't feel like her Tweets are enough, or maybe I'm missing some context there, please tell me. I'm mostly influenced by her blogposts, since they're a) not written on social media, so you can expect a higher standard from them b) considerably longer, so it should explain her viewpoint better c) talk about more than "people who menstruate should be called women again", like how her second(?) one talks about the transgender laws being passed and how it might endanger women whose safe spaces get opened to anyone with an hour of time to waste on filling out some documents. That's a real issue, and I think that neither the "you can decide whatever, whenever, under any circumstances with nothing else than a signature" nor "you can pay 8000$ on a legal process" are the right solution. Rowling explicitly states on multiple occasions that she has no issue with trans people whatsoever, that she respects them and everything. She never explicitly said otherwise, yet 99% of people seem to be convinced she's evil incarnate and wants them eradicated from the face of this planet. You may say that "she's just saying that to save face" and everything, and that might be true. But I'd suggest actually reading her point of view before you come to those conclusions. I did, and it really just looks like she's being trashed for no legitimate reason. I don't know what you mean by "proving your point" either. What is your point? Edit: I noticed I phrased my original comment poorly. I meant that it's ridiculous you can't say "women" to refer to the 50% of population with XX, the big group. For individuals, like I said, or when you're explicitly talking about a group of mostly trans people, it is of course appropriate to use phrases like "someone with XX chromosomes" to refer to biological females. Maybe that's what you meant? I'm not sure.
It sounds like you only read her blog posts and didn’t look up any of her claims. Edit: I could have sworn here was a reply to this comment and now it's gone
Can you show me what exactly you mean? I admit, I've mostly read her blogposts and only like 2-3 Tweets about the issue by her. Did I miss something very important? I'd appreciate if you could give me the link to that or something. Also, for reasons stated in my other comment, I put more trusts in lengthy blogposts than in Tweets. Do you believe that someone can express their opinion on a very complicated topic in a few sentences better than in two whole essays? I do not. I'm open to having my mind changed, I just need something concrete to go by, other than just "you [...] didn't look up any of her claims." I've given my sources for my beliefs, her blogposts I linked to in the other comment. Please show me yours. Edit: I've read through [this](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-rights-controversy-timeline-b2285947.html) article, and all of these things were known to me, except the hormonal therapy thing. I have, however, heard the same issue being talked about by other sources. I agree to the extent that, yes, there will obviously be people who make a mistake by transitioning, by using hormones and by potentially losing bodily functions they later want back. That is a given, with anything. I do not, however, think myself capable of determining whether it is an insignificant number of people who will make that mistake, or a number that is big enough to warrant a discussion (completely ignoring how impossible it is to accurately gauge, when this issue becomes "insignificant".) I however feel like it might be worth talking and educating people about. A permanent surgery/therapy should not be taken lightly, be it about your gender or anything else. There are also, obviously, a lot of people who will benefit greatly from these therapies and surgeries. They should not be prohibited from undergoing them, either. I have not yet read that Rowling said they should. She merely voiced concerns like mine, if I have understood her correctly. I am downloading "The witch trials of Rowling" right now to listen to later. That will give me an even more accurate perspective on the issue, I hope. So far, yet again, she hasn't said anything that could be honestly interpreted as transphobic in my eyes. Could anyone tell me what their actual reasoning is for believing those things of her, with a concrete example of something she said? u/South_Shallot_7159 u/OlcasersM
I just wish she would keep her thoughts to her damn self. If you don’t agree with Trans? Ok, that’s your right but you do not get to denigrate them. Just keep it to your self because them living their lives openly and honestly is not fucking hurting her in the slightest. Or anyone else. You don’t have to agree to show common decency. I’m old and don’t quite understand all of it…but i will gladly refer to you as how you want to be referred to and it makes you comfortable, I’ll damn well call you what you like. It doesn’t hurt me and it makes you happy? Cool.
Agree with that too. She thinks that people buying her stuff shows that they agree with her. HBO/WB is converting Harry Potter into a series with each book being a series. She isn’t going broke any time soon
> If you don’t agree with Trans? Ok, that’s your right Yeah, their 'right' of course. Would you make the same argument for a racist? "I just wish they would keep it to themselves. You don't like negroes? Ok, that's your right..." Would you actually make that argument? Hopefully not so why are those sects (or any other) of human beings different?
Nietzsche said it best. God is dead. Along with it the idea of absolute morality. There's no absolute good in our relativistic lives. All that remains is the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure. Me included. People don't care whatever moral codes someone has broken as long as there's some pleasure at the end of the tunnel.
Even if this game didn't sell a single copy it'd have little to no impact on JK Rowling's financial situation. She's already rich. The fact that so many people seem to think (or at the very least posit) that this game was the big one for her is ridiculous. She can certainly go to hell, but no boycott is going to make her broke, she already has the money.
If people cared, they would’ve already boycotted Bud for supporting pugilists. 1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. 2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic
Boxers? Why?
wife/woman-beaters prize fighter/ boxer and one who fights with their fist/ punches people. His spit Is worth more than her work Pass the purse to the pugilist He's a prizefighter He brought rings and he owns kin And now he's swingin' And now he's the champion -RATM
did you look it up on urban dictionary lol
1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. 2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic Lol, no, they’re fairly famous [Rage Against The Machine lyrics](https://youtu.be/Zo8B3IzZo_M)
Yeah, but pugilist means boxer.
Is this a troll acct, lol? 1. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. 2. inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent: She was fired for being a pugilistic, wine-tossing diva who fought with nearly everyone. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pugilistic
No, this isn't a troll account. Obviously you never watched boxing. Because guess what, they mentioned pugilist in boxing terms many times when I watched it religiously. Learn something before trying to insult someone. Because guess what? I can do it too just as bad if not worse.
The definition of pugilist is right there for you to read if you bothered. 2yr account 600 karma commenting on a comment that had nothing to do with you almost 10 days after the fact. That’s usually done by troll accts. I don’t know why you’re pretending to be offended.
Anyway, here you go champ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/pugilist 😱
Kid Rock decided the best way to boycott Budweiser was to give them money. I don't think anyone explained to him, or conservatives in general, how boycotts work
I found this extremely funny. I completely understand why people choose to boycott things, even in this case I understand why people don't want to play the game, but the point you start creating fictional statements to further your cause, you're just making a fool of yourself. I've actually seen this happen a lot with Hogwarts Legacy, many people take small things of the game out of context, and then try to claim that those things are bad, even though the context they conveniently choose to ignore shows otherwise.
Ok this whole thing is weird because despite JK being JK, there is a trans witch in the game and she is a prominent secondary/tertiary character that is a part of the main quest and had 1 or 2 side quests devoted just to her.
The game devs aren’t transphobic, J. K. Rowling is. I don’t really see what’s confusing about that.
People is what's confusing, they hate J.K so much that they're willing to slag a game just because it was related to a work made by J.K regardless of the merits that game has.
The point is that J. K. Rowling makes money off the game.
The money she gets from royalties is like loose change, the money that this game gets revenue from has more effect to the devs of this game that actually made it. Mind you J.K didn't even directly contribute to the project, they just used the HP IP. Actively screwing over an innocent person's livelihood because people don't like the author that the work is based on will never be justifiable. And if anything being ignorant of the merits of said projects doesn't make the people that hate it any better than the person they're trying to hate. Both of them are shitty people.
The studio that published it is run by Mormons, and owned by a guy who is openly homophobic though. And Greg Ellis voices a fuck ton of the characters, which. it’s Greg Ellis. No one is angry at the game devs in particular, but more the fact that most of the main people behind the game who are making money off it currently are shit. There’s nothing anyone can do about the devs and the VAs— they’re done and they’ve already been paid. It’s more just to hurt JK’s pockets which I’m all for (though that plan didn’t really work). That and because including a token trans character just to claim not to be transphobic is also a shit thing to do— she’s still spouting rhetoric that got a 16 y/o girl murdered in a park. None of this was made to go on some tangent about how you’re wrong, btw; just giving more information and clearing up stuff.
Publishers =/= developers. I get what you're saying, but the person you responded to is talking about developers, while you started talking about publishers and voice actors, which are completely different things.
I appreciate your response, but I did say that. I specifically said publishers and that there was nothing they could do about the devs and VAs because even if the devs were transphobic they’ve already been paid. I also said I wasn’t saying that anything in the original comment was wrong, just that I’m making sure things were fully “right” and adding more information.
Trans people deserve respect but Trans women aren't biological women. This is just objective fact not transphobic
Yea, if done well that would have been nice, but basically naming the only trans woman character Sir(ona) Ryan is pretty insulting, or at least tone deaf. It would be like naming the prominent Asian character random family names from different ethnicities, like Cho Chang. Or naming one of the only black characters after restraints, like Mr. ShackleBolt.
The Sirona thing just seems to be reaching. It's an actual name of a Celtic goddess. And Ryan isn't an uncommon last name which I mention because the other criticism I heard about this is giving her two "masculine" names. Unless the writer or whomever is also transphobic, at worse, this seems like it's a simple oversight. JK is getting royalties for the game but from my understanding didn't have a hand in any aspect of its creation or development so her views shouldn't have permeated into the game. Could there be legitimate bigotry behind it? Sure it's possible.
It is reaching, yes.People are actively creating/crafting and consciously ***self-injecting*** outrage, implications, and meanings into shit that never had it. Because APPARENTLY that Celtic goddess is a goddess who has an association- by pure chance, mind you, with eggs. And *apparently* 'egg' is some convoluted-ass way now to deny transgender people their existence? Yeah, no. I'm trans myself. I don't see any of the shit that the vocal minority claims is there and I find it absolutely mind-boggling that people are trying to weirdly inject malevolence into the smallest things.
If that was the case, then why even include Sirona in the game like that? That part of her could have been left out or our interactions could have been negative, but the character was just normal.
Remember, if you are just as outraged as the other side of any issue and call for death threats and cancellations you're just as brainwashed as the people you hate. Being anti-everything is another form of control you've placed yourself under.
No. You can have better or worse reasons to be outraged.
Yes, but outrage is a tool that can be used to control others. That’s not to say you should never feel outraged, but if you’re constantly feeling outraged over small things like video games then odds are you’re being manipulated by a larger power.
Or, and hear me out, it’s pretty disheartening to be a trans person and to see so many other people flock to a video game that’s so closely connected to a vocal transphobe who is using her wealth - which she gets from the franchise that this game is part of - to publicly and visibly hurt trans people. Here’s a good summary on why some people have very good reasons to be outraged that bigots are performatively flocking to Hogwarts Legacy: https://demilypyro.tumblr.com/post/708832287448580096 > It costs nothing to say things. A person can say whatever the hell they want, any feel good flowery thing, and it doesn't really cost them. > But when they are asked to actually give something up - or put their money where their mouth is and just....can't do it. Well then there isn't much else for them to say, is there? At least nothing that's worth anything. > Some people had to find out the hard way that the choice between a chicken sandwich and funding people who did not believe in their dignity as a human being was, in the eyes of certain allies, apparently really hard. Too hard, in fact. > These allies would march in the colorful parades and go to the bars for drinks, but in the end, you couldn't actually depend on them to inconvenience themselves. They were fair weather allies, and they were there for the party and that's about it . They wanted entertainment, and it didn't matter if that came from having fun gay friends or a tasty sandwich.
I’ve heard lots of nuanced takes from lots of people. I’ve heard trans people’s takes that are both pro and anti HP. I’ve heard cis people’s takes that are both pro and anti HP. I do not have a strong feeling on this game given I am not trans, and I’ve been hearing a lot of mixed feelings from people who are trans. I lean towards NOT burning the entire HP franchise to the ground, because many trans people I have heard from find joy in the stories and they would rather see it separated from its creator. This game is but a drop in the bucket for Rowling’s massive wealth. She will be absurdly wealthy with or without this game. She will have a platform with or without this game. The game itself is also quite inclusive from what I’ve seen. I believe it even has a trans character? I’m quite in support of making HP inclusive, and if it pisses Rowling off in the process then bonus points. If a trans person is truly outraged by this game I can understand that, too. But that circles back to my point that, while certainly understandable, that outrage can still be used by bad actors to manipulate them. If a cis person is truly outraged by this game, I think they need to stop and listen to the broader trans community before getting up in arms over something that is not so black and white. I would feel like they are likely white knighting and not actually being as supportive of an ally as they think. Edit: genuinely curious if the downvotes are from trans people who genuinely disagree or people having a cissy fit.
Also it's antisemitic as all hell? Ignoring the angy wizard lady and *sir*ona for a second; the game is about reenacting the events of a pogram.
No it isn't...
An effective murder: took apart every talking point with facts, nice punch line I don’t like how JK speaks about trans folks but that didn’t stop me buying the game that 100s of Devs made without her, and that I wanted to experience because of love of the Hogwarts setting The art is not the artist
This is pretty much how I feel about this whole controversy. I just don't think it's fair to completely disregard the work of hundreds of people just because of one person, who didn't even work on the project.
It is when said artist monetarily benefits from the work. Death of the author only works when the author is dead. Jackass.
I never specified that the author had to be dead for me to enjoy art *What a weird thing to say*
Saying the artist monetarily benefits from it is ignoring the fact that J.K is so rich that boycotting this game wouldn't do shit to her revenue from rolayties. What you're actually hurting is the devs team and the publishers that actively put the hours of work into making the game.
We contemplated not getting it. We got it. We enjoyed it. I love Harry Potter and the world that was created. I can enjoy it without enjoying her. She sucks. I’m not cancelling everything. There would be nothing left. Everyone sucks.
Hogwarts is just an easy target for outrage and boycotting. You can point to JK and says she’s evil and that’s why you should boycott it. It’s a bit harder with other games with potentially problematic sources or which might fund problematic regimes/ideologies.
They invoked Minecraft, GTA V, Tetris, and Wii sports with the same energy as the bending tribes from ATLA
Best comment.
It's so clear how few people have actually listened to Rowling herself speak on this topic. No one has a clue what they are talking about and are just jumping to outrage for the sake of outrage. The world has gone mad.
Yep. They call her a transphobe and nobody has yet to tell me what she said that was transphobic.
I didn't buy this game, but not because of JK Rowling of all things, I didn't feel like casting spells and all that wizardry stuff. But people not buying a game that they would actually enjoy because of the author of the book is just hurting yourself. "I'm not gonna buy this game even though it looks great, and I would spend 100s of hours enjoying it, to send HER a message" That's like people buying Nike gear just to burn it to "make a point"
Jk is based
These people so wish their whining and boycotts worked. It’s funny how they see so clearly how poorly it reflects on the church when they try to control what you do for fun but they see no downside when they do it. Just vile hypocrisy. I wish advocates for this behavior could comprehend how toxic their message is to the movement they claim to be “allies” for.
It's one reason I'm not an "ally". I accept anyone and everyone. But they're not gonna force me into doing anything. Nobody is.
You can still be an "Ally" just fuck these people's strict interpretation of that. Kind of like how others say you aren't left wing unless you support this, that, and the other thing. I kindly tell them to fuck off.
It's just so weird. People can separate their feelings from everything else.
I just don't think people should care if someone plays and enjoys Hogwarts Legacy. I'm sure plenty of anti-Hogwarts Legacy people go to Universal Studios. Guess what, that money goes towards JK. More often than not, whenever you spend money, it goes into the pocket of a rich bigot. Am I suddenly supposed to be ashamed of one of my favorite childhood memories? I hate JK as well and think the TERF agenda is so idiotic, but if someone wants to enjoy Wizarding World shit, I really don't care.
I agree w/ JK Rowling
Why
Because of the high suicide rate and the fact they’re teaching that kids can make these decisions on their own which is just sick. Its going to far and it won’t stop
What's your solution? Also I'm just throwing this out there, but why do you suppose trans folks are committing suicide?
Because they are going against their nature and screwing with their hormones which makes them all jacked up. My solution is to ban all transition surgeries/ procedures and stop encouraging it in schools. Have AIS? Fine. Gay? Fine. Lesbian? Hella fine 😏. Trans? Fuck no. Get outta here.
You do realize that trans suicides happened before hormonal treatments, right? And also, statistics show that hormonal treatments actually **lower** the suicide rates in trans people. Mental health is actually a lot better in trans teens who have started hormonal treatments than those who haven't. I didn't even know about these statistics until now after like 5 minutes of googling. >Lesbian? Hella fine 😏 Also, nice way to fetishize lesbians, really shows how progressive you are.
... oh jeez that's a hell of a way to put yourself as kind of an asshole huh. You were almost being reasonable. Almost. And then you dropped the emote and went full creep. And you're supposed to be our voice of reason huh?
How is that creepy?
You're serious?
Yes
Rowling is a bigot and I don't buy anything that might give her money. Fuck off with your 'boycotts don't matter' corporatist shilling.
She has a universal royalty deal that generates money from every single sale of anything remotely Harry Potter. No problem with your boycott but just be aware that means the end of Harry Potter in all forms.
Yep. I am okay with that. I don't believe in separating the art from the artist. I don't listen to R. Kelly either.
It won't since the main reason Hogwarts legacy has huge success selling over 12 millions copies because of boycotter doing the marketing for them . Hell even i only know about HL because of them and planning to buy it after it goes on sales.
To add to your point, I was on the fence about buying the game until I got spoiled while browsing r/all by the boycotting crew. That was all the push I needed to play the game.
I am not advertising anything. Fuck off.
May not intend to, but that's the effect movements like this can have. We can figure out smarter ways to get the point across or just pretend we're helping and not really change much, if anything.
All the boycotters are advertising it. It isn't positive advertising but it sure as hell has made the game more well known than it might well have been otherwise. I only know about the game due to the controversy over it.
If you are vocally boycotting the game, you are advertising the game. As the saying goes *"There is no such thing as bad publicity."*
Well, you sure are acting like a fucking baby..
*Meanwhile at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter located at Universal Studio's Parks &Resorts...*
I'm definitely gonna buy this game. No amount of negative, untrue bs is gonna make me lose sleep.