This thread is specifically for people who think JK Rowling is awful so..

[CurlewKate]

If you don't think she is please don’t post. Please can you tell me specifically what she has said or done that is so bad. I promise that I will listen and not argue. If you could include links that would be great. If your inclination is to assume that I’m posting in bad faith and any reasonably well informed person must be stupid or bigoted not to know, then please just let the thread die.

So you don’t have any, we’re just supposed to take your word for it 🙄

OP what were you hoping for from this thread? You specifically asked JKR fans to refrain from replying. I and several others have responded in good faith with aspects of her public persona we find off-putting. These have been largely dismissed and disregarded. What's the point?

Thank you. I disagree with a lot of what I read on here but I understand that a lot of TRA arguments against JK Rowling are unhelpful and don't really do anything to reach a resolution. On this, however, I'd be curious to see how her supporters defend her.

Coincidental how more than one poster who claims to have concrete proof of her being a transphobe then "hasn't got time" to find it when asked to deliver.

Well, this isn't what the TRAs bang on about, is it? They couldn't care less about this stuff. All they care about is the fact she won't call them women, and she fights to keep women's stuff for women, so it doesn't change my support for her on this one issue, but then I wouldn't call myself a fan of her, to be honest. I haven't read any of her books or watched the HP films, I just agree with her on this one topic and appreciate her work in getting it more sunlight.

If the TRAs want to complain about her licensing stuff to companies that use sweatshops, then I'd be in agreement with them on that single thing.

It's like the many posters, over the years, who have assured me that humans can change biological sex, but they won't show me the evidence because they don't have time and I should look it up myself (I have, there is none) and also because I'm an evil bigot and I won't believe the science even if they present it to me ( I would if it was peer reviewed and credible)! It's a typical TRA tactic.

Reason, listening and understanding and what else - interpretive dance? Mime?

At what point is it acceptable to say that trans women are men? Because, as the Supreme Court ruled, you cannot protect women's rights if 'woman' includes everyone.

I think that when people refer to this subject as toxic they generally mean 'Offensive to male egos'.

It's an interesting point, and not one I'd considered before.

I don't buy from places like Primark and Shein so honestly have no idea whether they produce Harry Potter merchandise or not.

As for the films, I don't know. The Harry Potter actors are hardly the first or only kids to achieve global fame at a young age. Would you ban child actors full stop (in which case how do you represent children in live action films?) or just from doing projects like Harry Potter?

You would think that if true, such a ground breaking scientific discovery would have been widely announced, and the scientists involved have become famous!

Yes, TRA arguments can often be unhelpful and reactionary (and I say that as someone much more on the side of trans acceptance than gender criticism.) But this thread was asking for examples of why we think JK Rowling is awful, and this is mine. I think her valid points and acts of charity that her supporters on here are quick to point out are heavily negated by the fact that she is happy to profit off of this sort of stuff.

Well, that's a fine reason not to like her, I agree. But, it's not why TRAs don't like her, is it? As I said, they couldn't give a single solitary shit about that. Although now it's been brought up, I'm sure they'll use it as a stick to beat her with (while still not giving a shit about it) because any mud they can throw for their cause and all that.

@SingingintheRadiator this thread has certainly enlightened me that TRAs are very, very busy people all the time. It's amazing that they have a second to spare to post on here.

Maybe their just shy 🤔.

They absolutely do use Harry Potter licensing. I know JK Rowling doesn't reach brand deals herself, but she could use her influence to speak out against WB licensing out to these sorts of companies, and she doesn't.

As I said in my original post, I think very short term projects for child actors is fine. But they're literally building a school on set for the new HP show, which seems pretty horrific to me. And JK Rowling must know about the press attention any HP project is going to bring the child actors, but instead of advocating for fairer coverage she's still taking pot shots at the last set of former child actors she benefited from at an extremely young age.

Do you mean she stands up to men instead of meekly saying yes dear and holding her tongue , then has the cheek to argue rationally, not back down when threatened with rape, burning or hanging , call out people who make ridiculous statements about sex and gender and use humour and sarcasm to highlight the shallow misinformation that often passes for truth and debate from the trans camp ? Is that what counts as bullying these days?

I have to say if that’s the case for the prosecution it’s a pretty low bar.

Yes, not to mention the fact that they could have found some proof in the time it took to post letting us know they didn't have time to find the proof, if all it takes is a quick search of her Twitter timeline.

Do you think every person who owns the intellectual property in a brand and allows it to be used by businesses like that is equally bad? Because that's a lot of people. Disney would be a far worse offender, or Marvel, for example.

Yes, I do think any IP owner willing to financially benefit from brands who engage in child labour and exploitative factory conditions are equally bad. But not all of these IP owners are being described on here and other places as philanthropists.

I do think they're all bad, personally, yes. But, I do also understand that cheap clothes are all some people can afford, and buying a HP or Hello Kitty t-shirt from Primark might brighten up some kid's day. So, it's a tricky one for me personally!

I'm lucky I can afford to buy ethically, and actually I try to buy used as much as possible now, but not everyone can, and I suppose you could argue that a very large amount of the profits do end up supporting charities in JKs case, so I don't know!

It's not as simple than that if she doesn't actually control the relevant IP.

I know that for the adaptations of the Harry Potter books she made sure the contract gave her a lot of artistic control over the production, but I'm not sure she actually has the power to prevent Warner Bros from licensing the brand for merchandise.

I'm not sure she benefited as much from the child actors as they did from her. They are mediocre actors who didn't really do justice to her work but got rich beyond their wildest dreams and then stabbed her in the back. People like Emma Watson have enjoyed untold wealth and privilege due to that lucky break, so I'm not sure we should be shedding too many tears for them.

Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble!

Ah, I wasn't aware she might not have control. This is very much not my area of expertise. I expect the TRAs will still use it as a stick to beat her with either way though!

She is a philanthropist though. That's not really a matter of debate. She set up and funds at least three charities and has donated money to countless other worthy causes.

Nobody is perfect but I'd say she's done a hell of a lot more good than bad.

Can you provide quotes of her 'pot shots'?

As far as I remember she wrote a very balanced essay outlining her position, and some of the main cast condemned her, but from their responses hadn't even read what she wrote. At this point the child cast were at least 30 and had made millions out of their roles.

I don't know whether it is ever a good idea to become a child actor, but I don't think any of the main cast have expressed regret about taking the roles.

As I said, I know she doesn't control the IP licensing. But she has a vast platform to speak out on this stuff, and she doesn't, she remains focused on a very narrow cause. She also receives royalties for this type of licensing, which she at least in part uses to sit her on private super yacht taking pictures of herself puffing on a cigar. Like I said, it's not really giving "philanthropy" to me.

And yes, the HP actors benefited financially from being in the film, but the point remains that for a large part of the project they were children, who initially had no idea what they were signing up for, and who could not easily walk away given how popular they were in the roles. Daniel Radcliffe went on to battle addiction issues as a direct result of his fame. JK Rowling absolutely financially benefited from them in return, just as she will the new set of actors.