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

A confection of irrelevant statements demonstrating the accuracy of my original comment.

[(Edit)
@Gretel346

Gretel346 · Today 01:51

AnSolas · Today 01:43
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.

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.
.... ]

I was not obfuscating with insults.

You post was a random collection of thoughts and words which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew her by some petty guilt by association?

He can come out with any opinion trite or not he wants to come out with.

However here he tries to play a "woe is me" card by slur her for supporting in Womens Rights when he is way too old not to understand why Womens Rights were and are needed and after a career in industry which has a such a reputation that its euphemism for sexual abuse is widely recognised and understood he would be stupid to try claim he could not understand.

His hand waving of its fine I never met her and will only work with other people is 🙄

If he is ignorant (as in has not read what she wrote) he should make that clear.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

If he is to much of a coward to say I dont think she is transphobic he should instruct his management team to vet his questions better and learn to say no comment or point out his actual job is to find roles and act in them.

I think the incoherence that AnSolas has pointed out in your recent posts is not AnSolas obfuscating with insults at all. It is them trying to work out what the fuck you are trying to say.

Also, Putin and Trump are leaders of their respective governments. Were you trying to say that anyone who had a civil service role in their national government at the time of their leadership has been given work opportunities by “Putin and Trump?” Or just them personally?

Just a reminder.

JK Rowling, herself, was very clear that people working on film / tv projects of her creations are never expected to agree with her nor to remain silent on her behalf.

I was not obfuscating with insults.

Pretending that a simple point like employees don't owe their employers integrity is incoherent certainly fits the shoe. That you have been caught out by this obvious inconvenient fact & are now lashing out as some some sort of defensive ploy doesn't do your credibility any favours.

However here he tries to play a "woe is me" card by slur her for supporting in Womens Rights when he is way too old not to understand why Womens Rights were and are needed and after a career in industry which has a such a reputation that its euphemism for sexual abuse is widely recognised and understood he would be stupid to try claim he could not understand.

Whaaat? Where did he play the "woe is me" card or show he doesn't understand about women's rights in his industry? Lithgow simply made the point that JKR's hypocrisy in preaching about acceptance in Harry Potter but not living it in practice shouldn't stand in the way of continuing to spread the message of acceptance.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

For those of us with a working conscience he masterfully did…& it was beautiful!

Ladies and Gentlemen, and Gentlemen who claim to be Ladies, a glorious day!

A TRA has stumbled on a logical, coherent point!

Yes indeed, someone who works for someone they morally disagree with should be free to say so in their own time in public, and to make their own beliefs clear without mob demands to their employer that they be cancelled or sacked.

Whether they can swallow their values and work for a person they claim to despise is a matter for their own conscience not public policing.

Of course they may still be questioned and critiqued on the logic, sense or even morality of their position. But not expected to toe their employer's moral line against their own conscience unless it means they can't fulfill their employment effectively.

Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.

“Or just them personally?”

‘Or just by them personally’ that should read.

Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.

You seem to be conflating a false right to free speech with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace…of which is illegal.

Yes it is illegal to discriminate against women and to remove their privacy and dignity as per the human rights act and equality act and Health and safety laws

Thanks for agreeing.

The privacy thingy kind of applies to everyone. That's why they are human rights.

I suppose in the interests of clarity I should acknowledge that this logical and coherent argument was not made in support of the TRAs' core demand that female people give up their name, their self definition, their legal existence, their social, cultural and political voice and submit to being redefined by what type of mind others assume they have, but in a side argument.

The logical barriers to female people understanding and agreeing that we no longer matter remain unvaulted.

But nevertheless, progress!

You seem to be conflating standing up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace. The latter is quite rightly illegal. The former is not only is not illegal, it is literally supporting one of those protected groups in their legal rights.

Do you mean to be so misogynist?

Gretel346 · Today 08:22

++++Now that is agreed, I for one very much look forward to the cessation of TRA demands on employers to discipline, cancel, silence or sack women who stand up for the existence, significance and rights of the female half of the species.++++

You seem to be conflating a false right to free speech with discrimination against protected groups in the workplace…of which is illegal.

Poppycock! There are huge numbers of cases, in which women have been discriminated against and bullied and harassed out of jobs and livelihoods, by trans zealots in workplaces. Women are legally allowed to agitate for their rights, trans zealots are finding that they are not allowed to bully and intimidate those women who dare to stand up for their rights.

Misgendering & refusing access to basic necessary public ammenities is discrimination.

Do you mean to be so wilfully ignorant?

You can have privacy and dignity without forcing yourself into the opposite sex facilities or spaces.

If you are a transwoman forcing yourself into a group which has a stated aim of talking about biology which I have personally experienced you are well out of order and KNOW you aren't respecting privacy and dignity.

You are an arsehole. Transwomen can be arseholes too.

Well bless

Are you having memory problems?

This was you replying to @Bedheadbeachbum :

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30

Bedheadbeachbum · Yesterday 21:19
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?

You read @Bedheadbeachbum post and its off to the races.

John Lithgow claims he did not get the job from JKR have you decided he is telling lies swallowed his integrity when he said that?

Or were you just too busy posting your random collection of thoughts and words (which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew her by some petty guilt by association) to notice that?

That you have been caught out by this obvious inconvenient fact & are now lashing out as some some sort of defensive ploy doesn't do your credibility any favours.

Ooooh no
The angry violent woman trope!

However will I get over your random thought process.🙈

I am shattered 🙉

Speechless 🙊

And
Sadly still with out an answer to my question 👀

AnSolas · Yesterday 22:12

Gretel346 · Yesterday 21:30
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?

Whaaat? Where did he play the "woe is me" card or show he doesn't understand about women's rights in his industry? Lithgow simply made the point that JKR's hypocrisy in preaching about acceptance in Harry Potter but not living it in practice shouldn't stand in the way of continuing to spread the message of acceptance.

Oh yea!

" Acceptance without exception "

Welcome back to the bottom middle and top of Rapist Gender Hill 💅

Even Stonewall wants to bury that one deeeeeeeep.

If he has come to an opinion that he believes her to be transphobic he should be willing to make that clear.

For those of us with a working conscience he masterfully did…& it was beautiful!

Those with a working conscience and the ability to look up words will disagree

integrity
noun

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

Taking the money and trash talking?

Are you going to claim you have no idea on why he picked his woe is me handwaving over a clear statement?

But you have a right to your opinion on how masterful or beautiful a choice of woe is me is.

But I guess you were just too busy to launch into your random collection of thoughts and words (which I can only assume are designed to slur and skew JKR by some petty guilt by association) to notice that @Bedheadbeachbum point was about trash talking and sidestepping.

To swallow ones integrity one must first work out what ones integrity should be.

Yes there are Rights but also responsibilities attaching to the Rights.

Some Rights are sex based rights

Imdividuals with integrity dont try pretend they have a sex based right when they know they dont.
That is part of the Social Contract which has backing in UK legislation

Individuals with integrity dont try remove other peoples rights by pretending they have a sex based right when they know they dont. That is part of the Social Contract too.

Men (or women in MOSSS) who forces himself into what should be female only single sex space/service just because he has a selfbelief that his Right overrides any womans right to that female only single sex space/service dont actually have any Right to forcr change that to a mixed sex space.
Men never did.

No one is refused access to public amenities. Everyone has access based on their body sex and no one gets to choose their body sex.

"Misgendering" is an ideological position that only makes sense in the context that being a man or a woman is mental not physical. This is a niche belief and one should no more expect others to accomodate that than one should expect people outside ones religion to accomodate ones ideas about blasphemy.

But be happy! The solution to both issues is trivially simple

Keep "man" and "woman" with the sex based meanings they have always had, coin new words to nane the differet to sex feelng-based identities you want recognised, and campaign for recognition, rights, spaces and anything else you think is reasonable based on that.

Allow yourself to recognise openly and honestly that gender identity is something different to body sex (as you know it is every time you say trans people exist), then instead of fixating on taking recognition, rights, spaces and even our language and history away from female people you can start to see who trans people really are and what they really need.

Most people would support that. Feminists would definitely support that.

It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Because while your care for trans people is genuine, that knee jerk anger you feel at JKR and so-called TERFs is not about trans rights at all but patriarchy's deep subconcious offense at women saying no.

Let go of your anger. Recognise what it truly is and it will have no power over you.

Open your eyes, open your mind and think bigger!

Just struck me the trantrums when someone like Glinner (it's usually him) calls out a former friend, colleague, whatever, for what he sees as wilful ignorance on this subject. This nepo-enby is doing exactly the same thing, imo, and should have exactly the same reception. Unless, of course, the tras are massive hypocrites.

No one is refusing men access to men’s spaces, are they 🙄 and if there are mixed sex spaces, they can use those too, so sorry, that’s nonsense.

Discrimination against gender critical feminists is discrimination against a protected group as lots of organisations have discovered. CGD Europe, Garden Court Chambers, Open University, Arts Council England, etc etc etc.

You seem to be stuck in 2018 @Gretel346- all your legal assumptions are wrong.

Excluding male people from a female single sex provision not 'refusing access to basic necessary public ammenities'. It is discrimination - legitimate discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad.

If male people refuse to use the single sex provision that are there for male people to use, the solution has never been to allow them to use the female single sex provision, regardless of how they identify. It could be asked why society has to provide those male people with individual solutions based on their personal decisions, however, the current thinking is to provide alternative options.

If misgendering is 'discrimination', then so to is enforcing anyone to use specific language that supports one person's subjective reality as if it is the universal material reality.

I don't think your accusation of 'wilfully ignorant' works here at all.

How can anyone ‘misgender ‘ when no one can define ‘gender ‘?

Next time you are in a mixed sex toilet, notice the design. Gender neutral, universal, unisex, accessible, disabled. Whatever it’s called it has to be completely private. That’s the private design because of voyeurism by men on women.

The problem with being completely private is you are less likely to get help if you are having a medical emergency. Or being assaulted.

Radar keys were an attempt to try and stop the misuse that goes on in mixed sex private design (sex,drugs,vandalism).

Single sex designed toilets have door and partition gaps, over and under them, for ventilation, easier cleaning, prevention of misuse and supervision for emergencies. BUT if it is ambiguous who is going to be in the space in front on the cubicles, then the cubicles become private.

So who gets a less safe basic necessary public amenity when cubicles and rooms become completely private?
women
children
anyone having a medical emergency

Who does it harm least?
healthy men

For example, if a school only offers gender neutral designs is that discrimination? I would say yes as there’s so safe facility for children with a whole range of medical conditions and invisible disabilities (diabetes, epilepsy, mental health, drug addiction, frailty, pots, heart conditions) that need single sex design. I also think it’s discrimination against the girls because of the evidence I have of what happens in these private spaces. In fact, it has been found the world over that girls will rather not go into unisex toilets in school at all. This pattern is repeated across wider society.

I am looking at safe solutions for everybody. That means safe design which is single sex toilets in a single sex environment as standard. The single sex environment has to be enforced by law, with exceptions for young children with carers for health and safety reasons. And also cleaners, for health and safety too.

I am also looking at ways to make the less hygienic, less safe unisex toilets better for those times (small cafe, train) where no safer single sex toilets are available.

To use your own (rude) words back at you, did you mean to be so wilfully ignorant of health and safety for the medically vulnerable and girls?