Is JK Rowling ‘too big to be cancelled’?

[IwantToRetire]

When JK Rowling dared police to arrest her for challenging Scotland’s new hate crime law, one outcome was assured – the multi-billion-pound Harry Potter brand continues to be a licence to print money whatever controversy surrounds her vocal campaigns.

The author, whose provocative posts this week will not be treated as criminal by police, has become one of the few public figures who appear to be “too big to cancel”, due to the enduring appeal of her wizarding franchise for big business.

Accused of transphobia for her vocal support for sex-based rights, Rowling has faced calls for a boycott of Harry Potter, from its books and movies to the blockbuster video game Hogwarts Legacy.

Potter movie actors including Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson joined the backlash, criticising her comments.

Younger staff members at one of her publishers, Hachette, threatened to down tools and refuse to work on her book, The Ickabog, in protest at her views.

Rowling has said she is not concerned about how the backlash to her position on transgender issues – she has stated that sex is biological and that female-only spaces should be protected – will affect her legacy.

She had added that anyone who thinks she is concerned has “profoundly” misunderstood her.

Corporations which might normally distance themselves from public figures who face “cancellation” for offending minority groups are standing by her.

Hachette pulled rank on its staff, saying it was “proud to publish” The Ickabog, citing “freedom of expression” as a cornerstone of publishing.

The BBC is currently shooting season six of Strike, the detective novels published by Rowling under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith.
A ratings winner for the BBC, the broadcaster is expecting additional scrutiny of the new episodes which adapt The Ink Black Heart, the novel which echoes her situation with the inclusion of a character accused of transphobia.

The BBC has had to apologise twice to Rowling after guests on news shows accused her of being transphobic.

The author has seized control of her own narrative by appearing on the podcast The Witch Trials of JK Rowling, claiming that she is not concerned that the backlash will affect her legacy and that anyone who thinks she is transphobic has “profoundly” misunderstood her.

Its a much longer article than these few paragraphs, but I am surprised by the tone as it is published in the "i" paper https://inews.co.uk/news/media/jk-rowling-too-big-to-cancel-2987608

Can also be read at https://archive.ph/KavRe

The organisations who provide this support to women have already made statements to support the gender reforms and explained that they currently operate a policy of self ID anyway.

Sorry, could you explain what you mean here? Self ID means men will be admitted to female only provision.

Indeed the head of Edinburgh rape crisis centre, a male individual, has told women to reframe their trauma if they don't believe men are women, and that even 'bigots' need counselling.

One of the reasons why JK Rowling has set up Beria's place. A centre for abused women where they know they will not be expected to include men.

“Beira’s Place recognises that effective sexual violence services must be independent, needs-led, and provide responsive, women-centred services so that they are free from the pressure of current political agendas.”

Again, can you print out my JK Rowling has been hateful.

Can you actually, personally, go and read what she has said and not just swallow what other people have told you.

And just in case it's not clear Clarabell77, you won't find any women on here who don't think that men, including those who identify as women, should not have provision to recover from sexual assault.

What they object to is the lack of provision for women only places. And the fact that women only places, despite being promoted as women only, are actually mixed sex.

No one wants to stop transwomen having a place of their own, of course.

I am absolutely reading what she’s saying, but the difference between you and me seems to be that I am reading and listening to what others are saying too.

Right, but when alleging that someone is transphobic it is more helpful if you can point to something that person has said which you think is transphobic, rather than to things other people have said alleging that she is transphobic.

Can you point to something JK Rowling has actually said which you think is transphobic?

The point is not that single sex rape crisis services are illegal.

As you point out, they are quite obviously legal because it says so in the Equality Act.

The point is that basically all the rape crisis services which actually exist - which are in part funded through the taxes paid by female rape survivors - have bowed to the pressure of LGBT lobby groups such as Stonewall to not provide any single sex services for female rape survivors.

It is, quite obviously, perfectly possible to have range of single sex, mixed sex, trans-specific and trans-inclusive services to ensure that everyone has access to the support they need. But right now women who need single sex services are being denied them.

What is the moral justification for this?

Okay, I'd far rather you just came out and said what you meant, but if I have to read between the lines, do you mean that you are listening to transwomen saying they need access to women's provision, and you have sympathy for them?

In terms of you absolutely reading what she's saying, could you, in that case, just quote where she's 'hateful'.

Yes, it absolutely is. It is shared by my two DSs who are 23 and 16, let alone by many folks my age.

She is spot on. Hairy butch men masquerading as “women” is utter nonsense and certain countries have lost the plot on this issue. Men are men and women are women. End of.

I don’t think it’s about hair or lack of it or being “ butch “ . I don’t want men in women’s safe spaces, regardless of their build, body or facial hair or hairstyles . It’s their biology that’s the issue for me, not their style.

I welcome all biological women into women’s spaces , regardless of how they identify, if they are trans, hairy or smooth , butch, fem , gender conforming , gender non conforming or anything else. It’s not about “femininity “ ( whatever that is ), it’s about biology .

By keeping out biological males, I reduce the risk of violence and sexual offences to me , my children and other women and children by about 99%.

I make the spaces inclusive of Muslim women, female survivors of sexual violence and abuse, asylum seekers and refugees, disabled women, older women, girls, women with mental health problems and learning difficulties, homeless women. Many of these will self exclude if men are in these spaces and I want then to be included.

What are you hearing that convinces you that, despite support facilities for transwomen existing separately, women who have been raped or sexually assaulted should be denied somewhere men do not access?

It's a bit like taking the blue pill again: trying to forget that reality as we see it doesn't really exist. The real picture is that society is set up squarely to benefit patriarchal interests and that a good proportion of it - not always men - viscerally hate women.

Once seen, can't unsee, but that's the only position from which it's possible to fight it. Depressing though the real picture may be, I still think it's better to own the truth.

What are actually acussing JK Rowlings of is telling the truth!
Your upset that she won't swallow the lie that people can change biological sex.
If someone is a victim of these types of crime, why would their need for safety be less important than invading other sufferers safe space?

I’m still marvelling at ‘read justify butler and free your minds’ as advice.

I say that as someone who has read Judith butler (and material she cites, and material discussing her).

Better advice would be: Judith butler and think, ‘it would really help if you could express any point clearly, Judith. Just one would do.’

A woman who pretends not to be a woman or even know what a woman is, whose entire livelihood depends on the answer being more complicated than "an adult human female" and who has won awards for some of the worst writing the world has ever seen.

Could you be any more condescending???