Scores of actresses turn down roles in play critical of JK Rowling’s gender views.

[lechiffre55]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/13/scores-actresses-turn-down-roles-play-critical-jk-rowling

"The stage production, which is set to debut at the Edinburgh Fringe, has already caused outrage over a working title which labelled the gender-critical Harry Potter author a c----."

"The production is yet to cast any of the female roles, including that of Rowling herself."

"Actors have been found for male leads, who will portray Harry Potter cast members Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe."

What about that chap who plays the girl in De Who? He could do it.

Plus, the writer’s insta is fruity. The venue has family events - maybe they decided there was a PR issue

Rather than start another thread am adding this here
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/23/edinburgh-fringe-threatens-pull-jk-rowling-play/

Can also be read at https://archive.ph/2JYjj

Dont forget original story is here, https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4993459-edinburgh-arts-group-to-launch-play-about-jkr-called-terf-ct-where-daniel-rupert-and-emma-stage-an-intervention and this thread follows on from that ... !!

This article was already added earlier today together with an archive link and much of the discussion on the thread this evening has been about it.

slight possible derail here, but cannot wait to hear in detail (of which so far there is none whatsoever) how phillipson is going to cut domestic violence against women by 50%-as if no-one had ever thought about doing that before.

I ponder why?

-If she doesn't like how she's portrayed she will set her lawyers on them?

or

-Her gender critical fans will harass the actress until the end of the decade over it.

I can see why few are willing to take the role up, the resulting hassle wouldn't be worth it.

A few have joked she should be played by a trans woman, or a black woman (in reference to the actress who played Hermoinae in the play compared to the movies). I think this would be a good choice and I wonder how she would react to that?

I once asked her on twitter why sex change is bad but she has no problem with her characters having a race change. She didn't reply and blocked me. Funny.

"I once asked her on twitter why sex change is bad but she has no problem with her characters having a race change. "
Because they're fictional? [Insert Father Ted "dreams vs reality" gif here.]

Wow. Those Torygraph btl comments are brutal.

I once asked her on twitter why sex change is bad but she has no problem with her characters having a race change. She didn't reply and blocked me. Funny.

An actress played a character, whose race (as far as I remember), was not mentioned in the book. It's a stupid comparison so no wonder she blocked you.

So going by your logic, it would be fine for someone to appropriate a different race then?

Ha, just posted about this on another thread, didn't see this one. The TRA freak-out is mind-blowing. Such irony. They've spent years pressuring venue owners to shut down feminist events. It's not even feminists who've been onto the venue owner here, as far as we know. He's got cold feet because of bad publicity in the press.

This just in. Billionaire ignored dumb tweet. More on that later. Here's Todd with the weather.

Sooooo people CAN change race?

She didn't reply and blocked me.

Is this why you’re so salty?

Oh, you mean that time when JK Rowling wrote a hasty Protection Spell to stop a black, teenage actress from being unfairly castigated for a casting decision made by a director/producers for a Harry Potter related musical project that was mostly outside of JK’s personal control?

JK is SUCH a bitch!

They's done a petition.

https://www.change.org/p/protect-free-speech-petition-to-peter-schaufuss-st-stephen-s-church

I must bookmark that petition and check how many have signed it each day.

I'm tempted to sign it myself, if only to suggest they contact Glinner for advice.

Allowing cancellation of art due to fear is a critical step towards censorship of speech of all forms.
Censorship is an expression of violence – towards thought, ideas, and, in the words of Alfred Stieglitz, the “vital expression of the self”.
Violence has no place against the self, and no place in art.

836 have signed.

Me too, if only to be able to leave a comment to say "You do realise JKR didn't try to get this shut down, right?!". Lots of the comments are so lacking in any thought process, it's embarrassing! Especially the guy saying (paraphrasing here) "You need to remove the words 'free speech' cos that's associated with the right wing!".

In what fucking world is "free speech" a right wing concept?! 😂

ARRRGH I'm so fed up of this ideology deciding everything is "violence"!

Goodness me, he's cross that the venue wants to cancel.

Fwiw, I don't want to stop this man putting on his play and delivering it to those who want to attend it. I hope it's poorly attended, gets bad reviews, and costs this man a lot of money, but I don't want to prevent it from going ahead or stop people going to it.

Same here. I've faced violence that broke my bones and seeing words classed as 'violence' really boils my piss.

I don't mind if it doesn't go ahead, TBH. Live by the sword, die by the fucking sword.
Or, how do you like a taste of your own medicine?

The thing is, it's not even their own medicine.

Venues that have refused or reneged on bookings from gender critical people have been successfully sued or caved because of legal action alleging discrimination, under the Equality Act.

I can't see how a commercial decision or one taken under legal advice regarding libel can constitute discrimination.

Well they are saying something there. Not sure whether they realise what...