James Kirkup about Hogwarts Legacy

I think what we're finding is that in reality trans activists don't have much say with the public, that's why they influence the small minority of those in power to enforce these policies on the majority.

They have known all along that the public would disagree, which is why they had their NoDebate agenda, Denton report laying out that changes should be sneaked in so they wouldn’t be spotted, sneaking in policy changes without public engagement….

Hogwart's Legacy is an interesting one, because I've heard that the developers (once their strop at trying to get the game cancelled didn't work) went a bit excessive on trans inclusion in the game. So there could've been calls for a boycott of the game based on excessive "wokery", but as the boycott was based on the opposite side of the argument sales were incredibly high, and for many the game was seen as "anti-woke" even if the content was the opposite.

I think what we're finding is that in reality trans activists don't have much say with the public, that's why they influence the small minority of those in power to enforce these policies on the majority.

Essentially the activists and games media (that bowed to the demands of activists) lost out because the boycott didn't work, and there wasn't a genocide of trans people due to the massive sales of the game.

My top priorities wouldn't include this issue either but it is the issue I judge every politician and every party on.

Yes, it's a bit of a litmus test.

Almost all parents know someone who is trans in their kids' class or school or peer group. But they may just see that as a fad like being a Goth.

Certainly anyone who reads the Daily Mail won't be unaware of the situation either, they're on an absolute mission.

I'm sure it's on most peoples radar, by now. But maybe they don't know the depth of it.

Which is why I think once the questions start getting asked, things might change. Certainly in terms of peoples' awareness of quite how far the ideology has gone.

When more people see Keir Starmer claim that one in a thousand women have a penis, for instance.

The point being that suddenly politicians everywhere will be electioneering and the best questions are always going to be those that they absolutely can't answer.

But that's all straying from the point about Hogwarts Legacy!

I agree with all of this.

I think that public opinion (as far as we can understand it) is genuinely "muddled" and doesn't fall into the neat dividing lines that people who have strong opinions expect.

It's why even though I can see the logic in the "don't respect pronouns" argument it worries me that it's taking the movement a fairly long way from where the median public position actually "is" - which by and large sees misgendering as unkind.

Keir Starmer probably is muddled and inconsistent on the issue but he's not really taking polling damage from it because in that he's largely reflecting public opinion.

@JamesKirkup Thanks for coming on the thread to explain - and huge thanks for all you've done to raise the issue.

I agree about how little this concerns "ordinary people". I'd say I move in circles more switched on than most, but the gender ideology debate is still under the radar. Those that are vaguely aware of it think of lovely, harmless Hayley in Corrie .

I don't think the GC movement has done much to promote sales of the game. People just love Harry Potter and aren't that bothered about JKR's beliefs - I guess that highlights what a small vocal minority her critics are.

The Isla Bryson case did wake a lot of people up, and the argument about the fairness of men competing in women's sport seems to be gaining momentum. We still have a long way to go.

Hi James, thanks for the explanation about the backstory. And the compliment (screen shotted for posterity, obvs).

I know polls don't show this issue as a high-ranking as we'd like, so thanks also for the clarity over your opinion of that 😊

What I, and I think a lot of women, are hoping is that, as the electioneering heats up, questions will get asked, which will raise the entire profile of the issue.

It's a gift for any journalists and interviewers who enjoy making politicians squirm.

And, as absolutely everyone knows by now, that particular sunlight can be spectacularly illuminating.

I genuinely think we might all need to buy some new shades.

😎

I don't rate it in my list of top five issues to be bothered about to be honest. Maybe not even my top ten.... personally more worried about cost of living, health, climate change, etc, etc.
A lot of people won't worry unless/until the issues affect them personally.

(For completeness, I may be biased... I bought and play the game regularly. It is a lot of fun.)

I didn’t make any formal decision to stop writing - I just concluded that the benefits of my writing were diminishing as the issue received increasing levels of political and media attention.

One of my concerns was that political and policymaking processes were ignoring real and important concerns about the impact of policy and practice on women’s rights and standing. I don’t think those concerns are being ignored now that politicians including prime ministers are routinely addressing this issue.

That’s not to say that I think this is all settled now, or that I’m happy with the way that the issue is being discussed. It just means I see less need for my own contributions to this conversation. Put another way: I don’t think I have many useful things to say on the topic these days, so I write much less often.

Another factor is that I’m not a full-time journalist - I haven’t been employed as a journalist since 2017 - so this has always been something I do in my “spare” time alongside my full-time job, meaning my scope for writing is sometimes quite limited. My overall journalistic output has been reducing gradually for a couple of years as other things take priority.

As for my point in that article about the salience of the sex/gender issue to the wider electorate, I stand by it. There is abundant evidence using multiple opinion research methods that the majority of voters (female and male) do not rank this among their most important policy issues. I’m aware that there are many commenters here who say it will indeed decide their voting behaviour but the overwhelming weight of opinion research evidence suggests that this is a minority position.

Making that observation about public opinion doesn’t mean that I personally consider the sex-gender issue to lack importance. I hope that my history of writing demonstrates how seriously I take this subject.

By the same token, I hope that the fact that I’ve broken a years-long MN silence to write her will serve as sign of how much I admire and respect this forum and its users, @Datun especially.

best wishes,

JK

Those numbers are immense. JKR is shrewd indeed, but none were more shrewd than Beatrix Potter who invented the concept of licensing a fictional character (first licensed character being Peter Rabbit) to rake in money from spinoffs/merchandise. She was Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson long before any of then were born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Potter#Legacy

Good article on this:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-beatrix-potter-invented-character-merchandising-180961979/

‘ the sex-gender debate isn’t a first-order issue for most people, even younger ones.’

I think Kirkup could substitute ‘men’ for ‘people’, and he would be nearer the mark. The ‘I am who I say I am’ controversy is just so much more relevant to women. Most men are unaware of TM , and if they are, they are not threatened physically by the intrusion of a trans- identified person into their space. I can’t think many men would feel daunted by meeting Elliott Page , for example, in a male space, whereas we know that many women feel decidedly uncomfortable by the presence of a six foot plus trans woman in a previously female only space. However mistaken and irrational such unease may be, it is still understandable.

And of course there are virtually no positions or shortlists designated for ‘men’ ( or perhaps they are just the default ?). There isn’t as far as I know a UN representative for men, unlike the post for women recently offered to Munroe. It wouldn’t make any difference to a male boxer if a girl went in for his contest ( though the rules would prevent a heavy weight competing in the fly weight division).

So the average man is just unaffected at the personal level, hence it is not such a ‘first order issue’ for them. Of course , it makes GL and Menno even more remarkable.

It rather looks as if he dashed off a very quick article without giving it his usual level of careful thought. I think he is partially right, just hasn't given the whole picture.

Whatever we think of the article the key thing is this.

Hogwarts Legacy had made 1.3 billion dollars by May with some major platforms yet to get the game. It probably around the 2 billion mark now. That is more than any of the individual films.

The huge anti HL publicity drive helped generate word of mouth before it came out and got HL all over the media at the start. It made it trend on the internet for ages and most people's reaction when they heard about the game was they wanted to play. Without this publicity it might have done worse in terms of sales yes some bought it just to prove a point, but it actually is a fun game.

Rowling's royalties are going to be around 10- 15% on each game possibly on the higher end because she was very shrewd in making good deals on marketing, spinoffs and merchandise.

So JKR has made around 200 - 250 million dollars from the game which had no input in directly creating, though obviously it is set in her universe. Millions of that money comes from the fact people hate her for knowing women exist and their attempt to attack her just reminded people how much they love her universe. She will use that money to do all sorts of great things for women and humanity.

Also it has demonstrated to Warner Brothers there are billions to be made simply by remaking the films as a TV series and creating more games. Which means more cash for JKR.

But whether people care or not, the sales of legacy do not prove it. The sales disprove that people support vilification of JKR.

It is either poor journalism, or it is trying to minimise support for those against gender ideology in order to fulfil some agenda.

Watching that interview, I suspect (and hope) he just misspoke.

I just saw a post on Twitter querying whether Keir Starmer has a trans identified child - if he does that could explain his difficulties in discussing the issues.

He referred in a recent interview to having "two boys", whereas previous articles mention a boy and a girl.
https://twitter.com/FamEdTrust/status/1744330831236051059

I think he’s right.

Most people’s views align with GC views. Even those who think they are TWAW, agree with the GC position when they have more information about what TWAW now means in practice.

But there is a question of how much do people care about it? And I suspect that most people don’t care as much as they care about cost of living, housing costs and a general sense of having competent capable government and pm.

I suspect the issue for NS and KS was less that people understood or cared about the women’s rights issues of GI, but more that it made KS look an idiot ( and weak and therefore not a capable potential leader) when he could not say what a woman is, and the more the question was asked, the more voters wondered why this was his focus and not the things that mattered to them. Same with NS, not being able to say the reason why Adam Bryson was moved from the women’s prison was because he was a man, made her look idiotic. It destroyed her plain talking, down to earth image, and made her look like just slippery, dishonest politician.

Maybe I am cynical and jaded, but that’s how I see it.

This article seems very much in line with the apparent recent editorial change in POV at The Times i.e. everything’s fine, Labour made some conciliatory noises to women about their concerns, so let’s not cause a fuss that might make our soon to be new overlords look bad.

Disappointingly bland stuff from Kirkup who has written much better and much more well-informed articles in the past.

I was surprised when reading the article that he hadn't considered the possibility that the vast majority of people are actually in support of JK Rowling and her views and therefore happy to buy the game despite what the 'Trans women are women' crowd would have us believe.

It is therefore interesting to read that James is actually more in support of JKR than his article would suggest.

How can such an established journalist show such a basic failure of logic?

I fail to see how he has come to the conclusion that the public don’t care about the gender debate. There is no evidence for that at all. If anything the success of the game may suggest people DO care about the debate.

What the success of the game shows is that the public do not support gender ideology

Yes, but I think he stopped writing about it before. I could be wrong, but I remember him revisiting it saying something like he'd made a decision not to keep writing about it. But I can't remember the reason.

@Datun - do we not see less of him because he's no longer a Telegraph staffer? I believe he's freelance now so might not have the same platform to be heard. (I do think it's sad - and dangerous - that so few publications maintain decent journalists on the pay roll.)

He's been excellent on this- cool, measured, factual.

He doesn’t seem to have taken into account that there were people who bought the game to support Rowling/push back against the boycott. Lots of “OMG I haven’t read/seen HP since I was like 12 & I only bought this to fuck with [rhymes-with-prannys] but NOW I AM A WIZARD!!!” & mums wresting control of family consoles from their offspring to get to play: there was a LOT of glee on Twix about it all 😁