John Lithgow on JK Rowling

[QAOPspaceman]

basically admits he hasn’t bothered thinking about her position on gender identity. The Harry Potter books are about tolerance so her stance is ‘inexplicable’, yet he’s never met her and only ‘read about her views’.
Read her for yourself pal! Do your own fucking thinking!

www.theguardian.com/books/2026/feb/02/john-lithgow-says-he-finds-jk-rowlings-stance-on-trans-rights-ironic-and-inexplicable?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I have given up hope we will ever get to see that list that we have been promised many times before, too many false springs. You'd think someone had it all written up to bring it out whenever asked for.

It is entirely irrelevant whether a man’s fixed belief that he is a woman is factual or delusional. He is not entitled to impose his belief upon others.

A Muslim employee’s fixed belief that eating pork is an abomination and that he must pray 5 times a day does not mean that the staff canteen must be pork-free and that all staff must stop work and pray his prayers. It means that the canteen should provide a vegetarian option and he should have the opportunity and an appropriate space to say his prayers.

Genderist beliefs are no different. When they are beliefs. How would you differentiate between belief, kink (AGP), and mental illness (dysphoria/dysmorphia)? Would you expect them all to be treated the same? Or do you just want women to Be Kind and submit?

You would, wouldn’t you.

Really good point. I no more share that belief than this one and I won’t be compelled to pay obeisance to either.

Fail.
You have already amply demonstrated that you lack the intelligence & comprehension skills to essay "patronising" as a tactic.

An article in the Telegraph

Non-binary film star ‘hurt’ by John Lithgow’s Harry Potter role https://share.google/GB1zt6PHKvN5DGu31

I'm having problems archiving their articles. I just get a 'page not found'. Was able to read this though when it popped up in a Google news round up.

It's a summary of the poor little nepotism babe's hurty feels. She's the daughter of the woman who's directing it. I'm sure that had nothing to do with her getting the role. The article also covers Lithgow speaking out of his arse both sides of his face and Olivia Colman's witterings.

I feel the true victim here is the journalist who had to write about this fuckwittery.

Is this the article Icake ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e2e6c745b4943531

Yes. Thank you 😊

I hate that people like Lithgow are all too happy to accept high profile roles which wouldn't have existed without JKR then trash her at the first opportunity.

I mean, that look doesn't work out well for anyone, look at Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe etc and yet these self important, cosseted luvvies never catch on.

At least sidestep the issue.

So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?

If John Lithgow took the money
(from your example of "bad people")
from the "bad people" and
• he keeps on planning to take the money from the "bad people" and
• this is after he was told by others that they are "bad people" and
• he agrees that these are "bad people"
● exactly what integrity has John Lithgow left to swallow?

TBF to Lithgow, in his original comments after landing the Potter role he did try to sidestep. Presumably because the film he's promoting ATM is about a daft kid who imagines they're neither male nor female, it's harder for him to avoid the issue so off he blunders into this nonsense.

Pathetic, really pathetic. Is that all you've got?? Jog on

So you seem to have a bad handle on logic! I don't know where to begin with this.

Again, you utterly fail in logic & yet laughably attempt to pray it in aid.

There were more coherent chatbots in the 90s than whatever's composing G's posts.

Something Lithgow has in common with Olivia Colman, neither of them are gay men.

"“There’s an element of this that feels vaguely hurtful,” the 20-year-old said, adding: “As soon as I heard about Harry Potter, for sure, I contacted John and expressed my feelings about it."

It's the insane arrogance. if I heard a random colleague (whom I'd worked with for less than 2 months, at that!) was now working for, say GB News or Reform or something, I might think 'huh, wouldn't have expected that of John,' but ultimately would just shrug and accept a job's a job. I cannot even imagine imagine the ego needed to think it is in the slightest bit okay to ring them up and tell them off for it!

Even more embarrassing when, whatever you think of JL, he is an experienced actor, vs a barely-out-of-teens nepo baby. 'Star' is a very generous term there.

“Not that JK Rowling has opinions, which is one thing, but that she has a very vocal platform."
It's (begrudgingly) tolerable for women to have opinions but not for them to express them too loudly or to too many people!

H'bout 'people owe their soul for a job' seems to sum it up.

That Telegraph article popped up in my Newstead earlier. I had some important drying paint to watch so didn't read it, but had a brief look at the photo and had absolutely no idea which of the 3 short-haired women in trousers and make up was meant to be the non-binary one.

This is a perfect example of why the far right & gender critical proponents are aligned in their rejection of principles…unless of course they can exploit them.

They are all about free speech & and anti cancellation until the shoe is on the other foot when then its suddenly 'you're either with us or against us'.

The idea that an employer owns their employees is another one.

Most people work for 'bad people' as in crony corporations or exploitative businesses of one kind or another. Are you seriously suggesting they go elsewhere if they aren't aligned with their unethical immoral dealings when there's no where else to go?

And btw most of the film industry is financed/run/facilitated by 'bad people' so that would pretty much exclude any actors from earning a living.

'If you don't like it go elsewhere' is vintage right wing power crushing little man /union busting politics. Congratulations you're in da club.

Are you having memory problems?

This was you

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30
So by this logic anyone Geoffrey Epstein, Trump or Putin gave a high profile role to should swallow their integrity?

Prehaps you need to expand on whatever random thought process you were going through when you jumbled these random thoughts and words together before classifying them as logic and hit the post button.

Cas you "da club" is unbuilt on empty brownfield site.

Mason-Hyde described Lithgow as a person who believes in transgender rights but has made the decision “for his own reasons” to do the Harry Potter series.

yes lovey, that will be the money.

In other words, you either can't or won't engage with the point that employees shouldn't be obliged to mind their tongues/integrity & that's why you're obfuscating with insults.