Thoughts on this academic paper about JKR?

Are we sure that this isn't some sort of spoof???

Sorry but WTF are "Celebrity Studies" are students going in to debt to get some sort of educational status, based on their in depth knowledge of "Celebrities".

I bet both the authors of this piece have a nimbus 2000, gryffindor robes and a lego hogwarts in their parents loft

We argue the Wizarding World should be considered a cultural field

jesus

audience research reveals a defining principle of the Wizarding World cultural field is trans/queer inclusivity – despite being founded by a self-described transphobe

these people really need to read The Ink Black Heart. it's all about mediocre people who can't create shit trying to steal the creations of others. It's basically about these two no marks

Biased, hyperbolic and badly written. Is it serious???
Can't read any more of this. I'm out

At least a used teabag can go in the compost heap to nurture my plants. Oh hang on…

Oh gosh. That's embarrassingly badly written. There's no academic rigour at all. How on earth did that get published?

The journal is called Celebrity Studies. It can't really get much worse.

Unreadable, grammar in the first part so poor I couldn't continue- how is it possible something this badly written has been published?

Has all the "impact factor" of a used teabag.

Journal Impact Factor 1.1 (2025), says it all really.

A helpful explanatory note appended to the academic paper illiterate fuckwittery.

Emily Hotine (Citation2021) explains:
TERFs are members of a branch of feminism whose ideological beliefs hinge on the idea that sex is biological and fixed, rejecting the idea of socially constructed gender. In essence, TERFs don’t recognise transgender women as women, and their beliefs undermine the rights of trans women by implying that they cannot ever truly be women.

Nailed it I’d say.

Yeah. I'd have been made into absolute mincemeat for handing something like this in, even as a rough first draft. And this is a PhD candidate and a senior lecturer.

Absolutely. I wrote something in a draft for my PhD that I thought was obvious to everyone (like "the sky is blue") and my supervisor said I had to back it up with references! I wouldn't have got anywhere with drivel like this.

"Rowling began to use social media to publicly champion a ‘gender critical’ transphobic ideology... she has continued to expound these hugely problematic beliefs via social media as well as opinion pieces and press interviews...At the time of writing, Rowling continues to actively align herself with a bigoted form of ‘gender critical feminism’."

"When the UK Supreme Court’s ruling was announced, Rowling again turned to X, this time to gloat and share a ‘victorious’ photo of herself."

Nail your colours to the mast, why don't you, Sarah and Joanna.

Celebrity studies? What fresh hell is this?

Celebrifried twattery...I mean, where do you start?
"CelebriFRIED, where actors say things that can only be because their heads have been to long in the air frier"

Enshityfication, I love it ❤️ I'm going to have to steal it. 😁

There's lots to analyse about fandoms and the way entertainers use causes for self publicity. But this isnt it.

Love the expression 'celebrified transphobia' though. I might start using the opposite 'celebrified twattery'.

Have the social "sciences", sociology, <ever> been such a binfire?

There is so much wrong with this paper that it’s hard to believe the authors (or reviewers) have had any research training, which is usually mandatory for PhD candidates at any reputable academic organisation.

I just want to say, it really isn’t the whole of academia. A lot of academia is doing really good work, research that is useful in many fields of engineering and medicine, with industry partnerships widespread.

This article is just a heap of amateurish politically-driven shit that is not worth producing.

And it is in Australia, that famous bastion of academic excellence where they accidentally wrote sex out of their discrimination laws. Morons.

Yeah. I'd have been made into absolute mincemeat for handing something like this in, even as a rough first draft. And this is a PhD candidate and a senior lecturer.

Senior lecturer appears to have started her career writing about Transvestites.

https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:b47175d

'Abstract
Transvestitism (or transvestism) refers to certain modes of, and behaviors associated with, cross-dressing; that is, temporarily wearing clothing and adornments designated to the opposite sex/gender. Those who practice transvestitism are known as transvestites. Transvestitism tends to manifest either as an expression of cross-sex/gender identification (distinct from sexual orientation), or for the purposes of sexual gratification associated with transvestic fetishism.'

Emily Hotine (Citation2021) explains:
TERFs are members of a branch of feminism whose ideological beliefs hinge on the idea that sex is biological and fixed, rejecting the idea of socially constructed gender. In essence, TERFs don’t recognise transgender women as women, and their beliefs undermine the rights of trans women by implying that they cannot ever truly be women.

'Terfs' reject the primacy and oppressive power of socially constructed gender. They don't, generally 'reject the idea' of gender as a system. We know it exists. Try using the perhaps slightly more insightful 'gender critical' label if that helps.

Now: answer this - what is a 'transwoman'?

I'm just starting, finally, to learn that 'academic' doesn't mean the same as it did a generation or so ago when I was a post-grad. The enshitification of undergraduate education that today's young people seem to feel forced to purchase at extremely poor value has produced a complete devaluing of the whole university sector at every level.

It's so hard for someone who was lucky enough to receive an adequate university education to really accept what the sector has become.

Could only bear to read the abstract, in which they call her a ‘self-described transphobe’