Return to Hogwarts - How will you watch it?

[Ohdoleavemealone]

I was looking forward to this until I read today that it is only streaming on HBO????
Is it likely to be available anywhere else afterwards?

I am also another who didn't watch the programme. I stand with JKR.

Oh you boycotters wouldn’t have liked when EW congratulated Evanna Lynch, Katie Leung and Bonnie Wright for their activism and generally just being “wonderful human beings.” That comment was only to remind JK that’s she’s not a good human being and doesn’t deserve to be called an activist because it’s the wrong kind of activism.

As for pp saying the show referred to her “quite a lot,” they didn’t really. Chris Columbus (director) spoke about Jo the most, none of the actors seemed to remember she existed. There was a couple of minutes of archive footage of Jo from 2019 and that was it.

Ah I didn’t take the comment like that at all @EyesAsGreenAsAFreshPickledToad. She was talking about the friends she made on set and how they’ve grown up to be good people that’s all.

@Mol1628

Ah I didn’t take the comment like that at all *@EyesAsGreenAsAFreshPickledToad*. She was talking about the friends she made on set and how they’ve grown up to be good people that’s all.

Perhaps it was as innocent as that and I’m just a sceptical bastard. Who knows.

I have also been thinking about a pp's post about it being 'pathetic' to not watch the programme.

There's posters here (including myself) who won't be watching the programme because they disagree with the treatment of JKR by many of the cast. What they won't

be doing is 'cancelling' the programme, demanding it be pulled from scheduling, sending rape and death threats to the network/producers/actors or doxxing the private addresses of women and children. That is the kind of behaviour which those who don't believe in women's rights indulge in.

They just....won't watch the programme. They don't have to.

I watched it today - curiosity got the better of me. It was noticeable how many of the cast members were missing. No Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton.
It was mostly the 3 of them patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on being fabulous! While barely acknowledging the woman to whom they owe their careers.

I'm still outraged at Daniel Radcliffe apologising on behalf of JKR - the sheer arrogance of it!

I think some people (like baffledbunny maybe?) get confused by the term transwoman and think it means biological female whose gender is male, rather than biological males. Hence the misunderstandings over periods etc.

[quote timeisnotaline]@baffledbunny what makes you think transwomen have periods? They don’t menstruate, they don’t have any of the equipment for it (whether pre or post surgery) Transmen might well have periods depending on what medication they are taking.[/quote]
Sorry I think I was getting confused between trans women and trans men. I should have said trans men having periods, as there was definitely backlash to her on the issue from what I saw at the time. People were upset that she didn't acknowledgement them in her comments about women and periods.

@Aderyn21

I watched it today - curiosity got the better of me. It was noticeable how many of the cast members were missing. No Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton. It was mostly the 3 of them patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on being fabulous! While barely acknowledging the woman to whom they owe their careers.

I'm still outraged at Daniel Radcliffe apologising on behalf of JKR - the sheer arrogance of it!

I think some people (like baffledbunny maybe?) get confused by the term transwoman and think it means biological female whose gender is male, rather than biological males. Hence the misunderstandings over periods etc.

yes I think I was thinking of trans women as being women identifying as men, when in fact they are men identifying as women... I thought I knew it but obvs didn't lol. Thanks for clarifying!

@Aderyn21

I watched it today - curiosity got the better of me. It was noticeable how many of the cast members were missing. No Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton. It was mostly the 3 of them patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on being fabulous! While barely acknowledging the woman to whom they owe their careers.

I'm still outraged at Daniel Radcliffe apologising on behalf of JKR - the sheer arrogance of it!

I think some people (like baffledbunny maybe?) get confused by the term transwoman and think it means biological female whose gender is male, rather than biological males. Hence the misunderstandings over periods etc.

"No Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton."

I noticed that too, I wonder if it's because they are of a certain older generation of feminists who maybe side with JKR more? I don't know if they came out in support or just keeping their heads down so as not to get abused/cancelled. Judging from the horrifying things I've seen on the terf is a slur website I'm not surprised really.

[quote Waitwhat23]@baffledbunny this what JRK said - www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

For stating (as a domestic and sexual violence survivor) that women need single sex spaces and requesting that the word 'woman' not be replaced by such phrases as 'menstruator' or 'body with a vagina', she has received enough rape and death threats to be able to 'paper her house'. This is the kind of abuse which women who agre with her face - www.terfisaslur.com[/quote]
Thank you for the link, it was good to read her views directly, and understand the nuances within her comments. I'm relieved somewhat to realise that she is not anti-trans (I abhor outright bigots) and I agree with her on the need for women to have safe spaces of their own, including in prisons. There was a lot I didn't know, such as the fact that the need to have some evidence to show you're identifying as another gender is being removed is worrying. In some ways I feel like people shouldn't have to prove it, (makes me think of nazis making jews wear stars) but when it comes to any criminal act such as rape by a man who then claims to be a woman then they should..

God that terf website is terrible.

I abhor the violence and outright agression that's been meted out to JKR online which is totally vile. I think the rest of the cast are free to defend transpeople as they did but should have also commented on how unacceptable the treatment is that she's received too. I don't know if any of them did that, but it seems completely remiss of them not to do so, if they didn't.

JKR is my hero. I love HP but was so angry with the main three backstabbing little fuckers I honestly can't watch anything with them in.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I love HP and JKR and for that reason I won't do either of them the disservice of listening to anything those talentless actors have to say. Without HP I can't imagine any of them would have gone very far. A few kind words sprinkled here and there in a documentary about the world created by JKR doesn't make up for their treachery and total SILENCE in the face the appalling threats JKR has received for sticking up for women. JKR has never taken an anti-transgender stance, ever.

Jo, I stand with you and thank you SO much for your voice in the lunacy which has become the gender debate.

@lottiegarbanzo

Oh but I wanted to pick up this comment too: I'm kinda leaning towards the trans side if so, (because it wouldn't have hurt for her to be more inclusive and say of course, them too)

Firstly, why do you need to 'pick a side'? Doesn't that seem very primary school playground?

Secondly, could you explain please how it 'doesn't hurt' to allow men* into women's domestic violence refuges?

This is what JKR was talking about. The need for some single sex service provision.

*Men because once you allow transwomen in (and remember, most TW have not had surgery and some don't attempt to present themselves as women, their gender identity is in their head), you are not in a position to tell any man that he cannot come in, because you have no way of knowing which one is a real transwoman and which is not.

"Firstly, why do you need to 'pick a side'? Doesn't that seem very primary school playground? "

It's usually the way that people "pick sides" in issues such as these. Just becasue they don't say they do, doesn't mean they don't!

"Secondly, could you explain please how it 'doesn't hurt' to allow men* into women's domestic violence refuges? "

That's not what I said! You're putting words where there wasn't any.

I said: "(because it wouldn't have hurt for her to be more inclusive and say of course, them too),"

I was referring to her comments about women and periods. People were upset that she was talking about women, and apparently ignoring the fact that trans men bleed too (I was getting them mixed up earlier!) Personally I felt it didn't hurt for her to include them in her comment on twitter but instead of simply acknowledging them, it seemed she dug her heels in and carried on, which seemed like a deliberate exclusion. I didn't say anything about allowing men into domestic violence refuges at all. It was about the periods issue.

I watched it and I thought the part paying tribute to those who have died was very moving.
I think JKR probably didn't get involved deliberately, if she was invited and refused, as it would stir everything up again and maybe she thought as it was about the films she didn't need to be involved. And I also think that the many missing actors was telling as well. I agree with JKR and I think its dawning on alot of people that many people do when they actually read what she wrote.

Another one in the standing with JKR camp so sadly won't be watching either

@Glassisalwaysgreener

There’s disagreement, and there’s throwing the woman who made your career under the bus, publicly, for woke points. Without a word of condemnation about the disgusting barrage of abuse JKR received.

I think Daniel R even had the gall to apologise on JKR’a behalf.

If the tide turned tomorrow and it became advisable for these three little weasel’s careers to agree with JKR, they would. She stands up for what she believes even though she knows it brings a tidal wave of hate. They stand up for whatever they think will make them popular.

Daniel apologising for her enrages me the most, I can't look at his face without wanting to punch it. The sheer audacity is outrageous.

EW in particular is so affected as to unwatchable, even before her disgusting sell out

Yes, it's never a difficult decision to avoid anything with Emma Watson in it.

Another one firmly of the opinion that JK has been treated appallingly - there should be room for everyone to have a voice . Yes by all means question if you don't agree with her but the backlash ridden by the stars she created was ridiculous. I agree with JK said and am sure a lot more people would come out in public support if there was not the fear of being publicly cancelled

Fortunately JKR is one of the few people who can't be cancelled. She has around £750 million iirc and has retained all her rights to HP. Warner can't fart without her permission. When push comes to shove they want to continue making money from this franchise and there's no way for them to legally exclude JKR.
It fills me with joy when I think of how much the TRA must hate that - they can froth and threaten all they like but she is one of the few people with enough money and power that they can't really touch her - all they can do is default to the usual threats of violence which neatly demonstrates to the world why they shouldn't be allowed in female only spaces!

Sorry quick question - what do TRA and GC stand for? I keep seeing these acronyms around this board, not sure what they are?

@baffledbunny

TRA stands for Trans Rights Activist. It generally doesn't refer to those who are rational and moderate and are aware that there is a balancing act needed to balance the rights of both transpeople and women but refers instead to those who are telling women to 'die in a grease fire'.

GC - gender critical, meaning questioning of the gender roles and stereotypes imposed upon women while still understanding that it is our biology which makes us vulnerable to discrimination and violence. Also known as radical feminism or just feminism.

Good to see you back @baffledbunny I feared we might have put you off by answering your points directly. Though you don't sound like someone easily scared away from discussion.

On your 'taking sides' point, I'm afraid I do find it very primary school and immature for people to jump to one 'side' or another without assessing the evidence themselves. I realise that people are tribal and will naturally flow with the cultural norms of their social group. I see that as a more passive phenomenon than actively choosing to 'take a side' though. What happened to 'I don't really know much about that.'?

Of course many people on here plainly have taken a side. But they've done that as a result of assessing the evidence (often having started out with quite different assumptions), not in advance of assessing that evidence.

On the periods / refuges point, my point is that they are two sides of the same coin. 'Being kind' and including transwomen in the definition of woman, results in non-trans men gaining access to women's refuges, prisons etc.

Transmen are female and they know this about themselves, as well as the extent to which they have or haven't amended their own biology, so it is not always necessary or accurate to say 'women and transmen' when discussing female biological processes. When talking about biology and medical issues, woman means adult, human female, not gender identity.

Confusing and conflating the two in a medical context causes more problems than it solves - like the high number of women who don't know enough biology or English language to know that they have a cervix, so don't realise that they need to book a smear. That number, of women who could die of cancer as a result of the confusion, is much higher than the number of transmen who might feel uncomfortable at being reminded that they have female biology.

But as ever, the demand for linguistic change isn't about transmen, it is about transwomen. The desire to describe adult, human females as 'menstruators' etc comes from transwomen who wish to take ownership of the word woman, to describe women as a mere sub-set of womanhood and to be acknowledged as women in all circumstances. The TRA backlash against JKR is based in that desire. So, the 'menstruator' wording that JKR was objecting to is directly about men gaining access to women's safe spaces.

Interestingly, when you say I'm relieved somewhat to realise that she is not anti-trans (I abhor outright bigots) and I agree with her on the need for women to have safe spaces of their own, including in prisons. you cast yourself as a TERF, in the terms used by TRAs.

Congratulations and welcome!

@Aderyn21

Fortunately JKR is one of the few people who can't be cancelled. She has around £750 million iirc and has retained all her rights to HP. Warner can't fart without her permission. When push comes to shove they want to continue making money from this franchise and there's no way for them to legally exclude JKR. It fills me with joy when I think of how much the TRA must hate that - they can froth and threaten all they like but she is one of the few people with enough money and power that they can't really touch her - all they can do is default to the usual threats of violence which neatly demonstrates to the world why they shouldn't be allowed in female only spaces!

And this is why it’s so amazing that she entered the arena. She didn’t have to, she could have just gone softly softly as so many have but she didn’t and I love her for it. She made herself a rallying point and in a way put herself up as a shield for the women without so much power and ability to protect themselves from the fallout. I believe she turned the debate and made it easier for others to stand up. I think it would have turned any way but it would have taken much longer and more and more of this damaging, women attacking belief system would have become enshrined in law.

I ❤️ JKR

[quote Waitwhat23]@baffledbunny

TRA stands for Trans Rights Activist. It generally doesn't refer to those who are rational and moderate and are aware that there is a balancing act needed to balance the rights of both transpeople and women but refers instead to those who are telling women to 'die in a grease fire'.

GC - gender critical, meaning questioning of the gender roles and stereotypes imposed upon women while still understanding that it is our biology which makes us vulnerable to discrimination and violence. Also known as radical feminism or just feminism.[/quote]
Thanks so much!

@lottiegarbanzo

Good to see you back *@baffledbunny* I feared we might have put you off by answering your points directly. Though you don't sound like someone easily scared away from discussion.

On your 'taking sides' point, I'm afraid I do find it very primary school and immature for people to jump to one 'side' or another without assessing the evidence themselves. I realise that people are tribal and will naturally flow with the cultural norms of their social group. I see that as a more passive phenomenon than actively choosing to 'take a side' though. What happened to 'I don't really know much about that.'?

Of course many people on here plainly have taken a side. But they've done that as a result of assessing the evidence (often having started out with quite different assumptions), not in advance of assessing that evidence.

On the periods / refuges point, my point is that they are two sides of the same coin. 'Being kind' and including transwomen in the definition of woman, results in non-trans men gaining access to women's refuges, prisons etc.

Transmen are female and they know this about themselves, as well as the extent to which they have or haven't amended their own biology, so it is not always necessary or accurate to say 'women and transmen' when discussing female biological processes. When talking about biology and medical issues, woman means adult, human female, not gender identity.

Confusing and conflating the two in a medical context causes more problems than it solves - like the high number of women who don't know enough biology or English language to know that they have a cervix, so don't realise that they need to book a smear. That number, of women who could die of cancer as a result of the confusion, is much higher than the number of transmen who might feel uncomfortable at being reminded that they have female biology.

But as ever, the demand for linguistic change isn't about transmen, it is about transwomen. The desire to describe adult, human females as 'menstruators' etc comes from transwomen who wish to take ownership of the word woman, to describe women as a mere sub-set of womanhood and to be acknowledged as women in all circumstances. The TRA backlash against JKR is based in that desire. So, the 'menstruator' wording that JKR was objecting to is directly about men gaining access to women's safe spaces.

Interestingly, when you say I'm relieved somewhat to realise that she is not anti-trans (I abhor outright bigots) and I agree with her on the need for women to have safe spaces of their own, including in prisons. you cast yourself as a TERF, in the terms used by TRAs.

Congratulations and welcome!

Thanks and yes, I do enjoy a good debate lol, but on this topic I'm still learning and working out where I stand, as don't really know that much about it!

I agree that taking sides is very simplistic, and there is a danger that people or issues can fall in between and get ignored.

For example, the issue here seems to be posed as A) If you're in favour of natal women's rights and therefore must be somehow against transwomen due to potential for crime or trampling on their rights; or B) You're in favour of trans women's rights and therefore can't support natal women and would trample on their rights too.

The problem with A is that people automatically assume transwomen must pose harm to natal women, and crime is always brought up as an example. I'm not saying that crime isn't a real issue, and the Police Scotland policy is shocking.

But what about the "genuine" transwomen who just want to live their lives as women due to feelings of gender dysphoria, and have no intention or wish to harm a natal woman, and would even support their rights for safe spaces if needed? Those are the people I feel get lost in the argument. They need to be supported too, otherwise it does indeed become a question of sides... (imo)

The key issue to me is tackling the

Quick answers would be that:

1. GC feminists (along with the majority of the population, who think you can't change sex and that gender does not universally override sex) are not 'against' trans people in any way. They just think that single sex provision exists for a reason and should be maintained where needed. Decent trans people recognise that too.

2. Decent trans people can speak up for themselves. It isn't women's job to try to speak up for them, or to mother them.

3. Men commit the majority of crime and the vast majority of violent and sexual crime.

4. Because gender is an experience or belief in people's heads, not a physical manifestation, there is no way of knowing whether a man who tells you he is trans is telling the truth. If the rule is that transwomen are allowed into women's single sex facilities, by virtue of their gender, there is no way of keeping out ANY man who wishes to enter.

That is something of a logic puzzle and one for the decent trans people to solve, if they so wish. In the meantime, let's maintain the distinction between sex and gender, as it applies to single sex provision (and in line with the law).

If trans people wish to campaign for 'third spaces' that is entirely up to them and wouldn't upset anybody.

Or if they wished to campaign for men to behave better, so that they could feel safe and comfortable using the single sex provision already available to them, that would be a choice for them too.

5. It would be nice to think that transwomen commit crime in line with a female, not a male pattern. Sadly, the evidence is otherwise.

So, in terms of crime, the primary concern is that bad men will use the 'trans loophole' to gain access to women's spaces - and that the sort of men whose partners and acquaintances find themselves needing to use domestic violence refuges and rape crisis centres, are exactly the kind of determined, abusive bastards who will have no hesitation about doing this.

There is also a secondary concern that letting in transwoman, people who have developed physically and socially as males and whose offending, at the population level, follows a male pattern, increases the risk to women of violent and sexual crime, by a small but entirely avoidable amount.

The aggression and vindictiveness of the worst of the TRAs, with all their death and rape threats, serves to emphasise this risk, loudly and publicly.