John Lithgow on JK Rowling

Yes there are Rights but also responsibilities attaching to the Rights.

Some Rights are sex based rights

Imdividuals with integrity dont try pretend they have a sex based right when they know they dont.
That is part of the Social Contract which has backing in UK legislation

Individuals with integrity dont try remove other peoples rights by pretending they have a sex based right when they know they dont. That is part of the Social Contract too.

Men (or women in MOSSS) who forces himself into what should be female only single sex space/service just because he has a selfbelief that his Right overrides any womans right to that female only single sex space/service dont actually have any Right to forcr change that to a mixed sex space.
Men never did.

Well bless

Are you having memory problems?

This was you replying to @Bedheadbeachbum :

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30

Bedheadbeachbum · Yesterday 21:19
I hate that people like Lithgow are all too happy to accept high profile roles which wouldn't have existed without JKR then trash her at the first opportunity.

I mean, that look doesn't work out well for anyone, look at Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe etc and yet these self important, cosseted luvvies never catch on.

At least sidestep the issue.

So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?

You read @Bedheadbeachbum post and its off to the races.

John Lithgow claims he did not get the job from JKR have you decided he is telling lies swallowed his integrity when he said that?

Or were you just too busy posting your random collection of thoughts and words (which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew her by some petty guilt by association) to notice that?

That you have been caught out by this obvious inconvenient fact & are now lashing out as some some sort of defensive ploy doesn't do your credibility any favours.

Ooooh no
The angry violent woman trope!

However will I get over your random thought process.🙈

I am shattered 🙉

Speechless 🙊

And
Sadly still with out an answer to my question 👀

AnSolas · Yesterday 22:12

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30
So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?

If John Lithgow took the money
(from your example of "bad people")
from the "bad people" and
• he keeps on planning to take the money from the "bad people" and
• this is after he was told by others that they are "bad people" and
• he agrees that these are "bad people"
● exactly what integrity has John Lithgow left to swallow?

Whaaat? Where did he play the "woe is me" card or show he doesn't understand about women's rights in his industry? Lithgow simply made the point that JKR's hypocrisy in preaching about acceptance in Harry Potter but not living it in practice shouldn't stand in the way of continuing to spread the message of acceptance.

Oh yea!

" Acceptance without exception "

Welcome back to the bottom middle and top of Rapist Gender Hill 💅

Even Stonewall wants to bury that one deeeeeeeep.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

For those of us with a working conscience he masterfully did…& it was beautiful!

Those with a working conscience and the ability to look up words will disagree

integrity
noun

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

Taking the money and trash talking?

Are you going to claim you have no idea on why he picked his woe is me handwaving over a clear statement?

But you have a right to your opinion on how masterful or beautiful a choice of woe is me is.

But I guess you were just too busy to launch into your random collection of thoughts and words (which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew JKR by some petty guilt by association) to notice that @Bedheadbeachbum point was about trash talking and sidestepping.

To swallow ones integrity one must first work out what ones integrity should be.

You can have privacy and dignity without forcing yourself into the opposite sex facilities or spaces.

If you are a transwoman forcing yourself into a group which has a stated aim of talking about biology which I have personally experienced you are well out of order and KNOW you aren't respecting privacy and dignity.

You are an arsehole. Transwomen can be arseholes too.

Misgendering & refusing access to basic necessary public ammenities is discrimination.

Do you mean to be so wilfully ignorant?

Gretel346 · Today 08:22

++++Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.++++

You seem to be conflating a false right to free speech with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace…of which is illegal.

Poppycock! There are huge numbers of cases, in which women have been discriminated against and bullied and harassed out of jobs and livelihoods, by trans zealots in workplaces. Women are legally allowed to agitate for their rights, trans zealots are finding that they are not allowed to bully and intimidate those women who dare to stand up for their rights.

You seem to be conflating standing up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace. The latter is quite rightly illegal. The former is not only is not illegal, it is literally supporting one of those protected groups in their legal rights.

Do you mean to be so misogynist?

I suppose in the interests of clarity I should acknowledge that this logical and coherent argument was not made in support of the TRAs' core demand that female people give up their name, their self definition, their legal existence, their social, cultural and political voice and submit to being redefined by what type of mind others assume they have, but in a side argument.

The logical barriers to female people understanding and agreeing that we no longer matter remain unvaulted.

But nevertheless, progress!

The privacy thingy kind of applies to everyone. That's why they are human rights.

Yes it is illegal to discriminate against women and to remove their privacy and dignity as per the human rights act and equality act and Health and safety laws

Thanks for agreeing.

Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.

You seem to be conflating a false right to free speech with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace…of which is illegal.

“Or just them personally?”

‘Or just by them personally’ that should read.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and Gentlemen who claim to be Ladies, a glorious day!

A TRA has stumbled on a logical, coherent point!

Yes indeed, someone who works for someone they morally disagree with should be free to say so in their own time in public, and to make their own beliefs clear without mob demands to their employer that they be cancelled or sacked.

Whether they can swallow their values and work for a person they claim to despise is a matter for their own conscience not public policing.

Of course they may still be questioned and critiqued on the logic, sense or even morality of their position. But not expected to toe their employer's moral line against their own conscience unless it means they can't fulfill their employment effectively.

Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.

I was not obfuscating with insults.

Pretending that a simple point like employees don't owe their employers integrity is incoherent certainly fits the shoe. That you have been caught out by this obvious inconvenient fact & are now lashing out as some some sort of defensive ploy doesn't do your credibility any favours.

However here he tries to play a "woe is me" card by slur her for supporting in Womens Rights when he is way too old not to understand why Womens Rights were and are needed and after a career in industry which has a such a reputation that its euphemism for sexual abuse is widely recognised and understood he would be stupid to try claim he could not understand.

Whaaat? Where did he play the "woe is me" card or show he doesn't understand about women's rights in his industry? Lithgow simply made the point that JKR's hypocrisy in preaching about acceptance in Harry Potter but not living it in practice shouldn't stand in the way of continuing to spread the message of acceptance.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

For those of us with a working conscience he masterfully did…& it was beautiful!

Just a reminder.

JK Rowling, herself, was very clear that people working on film / tv projects of her creations are never expected to agree with her nor to remain silent on her behalf.

I think the incoherence that AnSolas has pointed out in your recent posts is not AnSolas obfuscating with insults at all. It is them trying to work out what the fuck you are trying to say.

Also, Putin and Trump are leaders of their respective governments. Were you trying to say that anyone who had a civil service role in their national government at the time of their leadership has been given work opportunities by “Putin and Trump?” Or just them personally?

[(Edit)
@Gretel346

Gretel346 · Today 01:51

AnSolas · Today 01:43
Are you having memory problems?
This was you
Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30
So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?
Prehaps you need to expand on whatever random thought process you were going through when you jumbled these random thoughts and words together before classifying them as logic and hit the post button.
Cas you "da club" is unbuilt on empty brownfield site.

In other words, you either can't or won't engage with the point that employees shouldn't be obliged to mind their tongues/integrity & that's why you're obfuscating with insults.
.... ]

I was not obfuscating with insults.

You post was a random collection of thoughts and words which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew her by some petty guilt by association?

He can come out with any opinion trite or not he wants to come out with.

However here he tries to play a "woe is me" card by slur her for supporting in Womens Rights when he is way too old not to understand why Womens Rights were and are needed and after a career in industry which has a such a reputation that its euphemism for sexual abuse is widely recognised and understood he would be stupid to try claim he could not understand.

His hand waving of its fine I never met her and will only work with other people is 🙄

If he is ignorant (as in has not read what she wrote) he should make that clear.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

If he is to much of a coward to say I dont think she is transphobic he should instruct his management team to vet his questions better and learn to say no comment or point out his actual job is to find roles and act in them.

A confection of irrelevant statements demonstrating the accuracy of my original comment.

In other words, you either can't or won't engage with the point that employees shouldn't be obliged to mind their tongues/integrity & that's why you're obfuscating with insults.

Mason-Hyde described Lithgow as a person who believes in transgender rights but has made the decision “for his own reasons” to do the Harry Potter series.

yes lovey, that will be the money.

Are you having memory problems?

This was you

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30
So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?

Prehaps you need to expand on whatever random thought process you were going through when you jumbled these random thoughts and words together before classifying them as logic and hit the post button.

Cas you "da club" is unbuilt on empty brownfield site.

Most people work for 'bad people' as in crony corporations or exploitative businesses of one kind or another. Are you seriously suggesting they go elsewhere if they aren't aligned with their unethical immoral dealings when there's no where else to go?

And btw most of the film industry is financed/run/facilitated by 'bad people' so that would pretty much exclude any actors from earning a living.

'If you don't like it go elsewhere' is vintage right wing power crushing little man /union busting politics. Congratulations you're in da club.

This is a perfect example of why the far right & gender critical proponents are aligned in their rejection of principles…unless of course they can exploit them.

They are all about free speech & and anti cancellation until the shoe is on the other foot when then its suddenly 'you're either with us or against us'.

The idea that an employer owns their employees is another one.

That Telegraph article popped up in my Newstead earlier. I had some important drying paint to watch so didn't read it, but had a brief look at the photo and had absolutely no idea which of the 3 short-haired women in trousers and make up was meant to be the non-binary one.

H'bout 'people owe their soul for a job' seems to sum it up.

"“There’s an element of this that feels vaguely hurtful,” the 20-year-old said, adding: “As soon as I heard about Harry Potter, for sure, I contacted John and expressed my feelings about it."

It's the insane arrogance. if I heard a random colleague (whom I'd worked with for less than 2 months, at that!) was now working for, say GB News or Reform or something, I might think 'huh, wouldn't have expected that of John,' but ultimately would just shrug and accept a job's a job. I cannot even imagine imagine the ego needed to think it is in the slightest bit okay to ring them up and tell them off for it!

Even more embarrassing when, whatever you think of JL, he is an experienced actor, vs a barely-out-of-teens nepo baby. 'Star' is a very generous term there.

“Not that JK Rowling has opinions, which is one thing, but that she has a very vocal platform."
It's (begrudgingly) tolerable for women to have opinions but not for them to express them too loudly or to too many people!