JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Tamas]

I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/

Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.

But why is this even a concern for them? Quite very obviously anything using Rowling's IP will bring some level of profit for Rowling. So just forget about Harry Potter and regain stability on their morally high horse. It seems like they are trying to ride that horse, deprive Rowling any profit from her work, but also want to enjoy said work.

[Josquius]

I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/

Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.

As much as your usual suspects might make a noise about this sort of thing, it is really quite encouraging, that across  the board, companies run the numbers and find there's more money to be made in distancing themselves from this bollocks than just ignoring it.
Fundamentally the majority just don't care about transgender people using whatever toilet or any of that sort of thing and would come down on the side of "Leave things be" if pushed.  Its amazing that this is even an issue.

[The Brain]

Using an IP that is heavily associated with a single individual always carries risk, especially an individual that's still alive. It's a bit like raising a statue of someone still alive.

[garbon]

I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/

Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.

But why is this even a concern for them? Quite very obviously anything using Rowling's IP will bring some level of profit for Rowling. So just forget about Harry Potter and regain stability on their morally high horse. It seems like they are trying to ride that horse, deprive Rowling any profit from her work, but also want to enjoy said work.

Because they enjoy HP (some of them have emotional connections to it forged from childhood) but struggle to reconcile that with their dislike now for the author given her un-HP comments?

I don't think it is unusual for people to struggle when they like a work but have qualms about the creator (be that literature, art, cinema, etc.).

[Tamas]

Sure but if they feel morally obliged to boycott her then the actions to take are clear. If they have trouble prioritising their support for causes over their personal entertainment needs, that's their private business.

[The Brain]

But... but... they care about transpeople but they really want to play a videogame! Can't you see they're in pain?

[garbon]

Sure but if they feel morally obliged to boycott her then the actions to take are clear. If they have trouble prioritising their support for causes over their personal entertainment needs, that's their private business.

But let's be clear there isn't some unified agenda or view here.

Some don't plan to play as they don't want to support HP anymore.

Some aren't sure if they want to play as they aren't sure if they want to support HP.

Some have said they are okay playing as Rowling likely already got her cut as part of her overall deal with WB and even if she gets residuals, there are also all the other blameless people who were involved in the project.

Still others have said they are okay as they think of HP as something bigger than just Rowling st this point.

I don't believe any of them (or at least not most) were looking for a statement from WB but rather WB saw these concerns and decided to take action.

[grumbler]

Well I have searched a few times since first creating this thread and not been able to find any evidence that it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the alternate sex in the UK.

Looking at California, I mostly see thst à private business could ask you to leave as a result and then it would be trespass if you refuse to leave.

Only one thing I found was that it may or may not have at one time been made illegal to do so in Santa Monica.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-11-01-me-688-story.html

But I guess that speaks exactly to the concerns of transgendered people. How would you possibly know the ins and outs of when you are and are not allowed to use the bathroom of the gender you identify with... and more importantly will the other citizens who might report you know?

In Virginia, Maryland, and Michigan (all places I can easy check and get authoritative answers) it is trespass to knowingly use a bathroom, locker room, etc designated for the opposite sex.  A trans person who legitimately considers themselves entitled to use such facilities would not be trespassing (hence the need of the reactionaries to change the law to make it illegal to use a restroom designated for the use of those with the opposite sex on your birth certificate. 

The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.

Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/  Not that i can see.  But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort.  Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.

[garbon]

In Virginia, Maryland, and Michigan (all places I can easy check and get authoritative answers) it is trespass to knowingly use a bathroom, locker room, etc designated for the opposite sex.  A trans person who legitimately considers themselves entitled to use such facilities would not be trespassing (hence the need of the reactionaries to change the law to make it illegal to use a restroom designated for the use of those with the opposite sex on your birth certificate. 

The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.

Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/  Not that i can see.  But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort.  Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.

I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.

[viper37]

It wouldn't bother me at all. I just don't care. My daughter is only 21, so barely out of her teen years. She doesn't care, either.

Great. 

It's not about "did they use the right bathroom?". It's about "are they going to leer/attack me?" The complete lack of that happening now says there isn't anyone doing that kind of thing. Like garbon says, there are zero laws in place right now regarding who is allowed to use which bathroom. It's just not a thing. It only became a thing when people got pissy about transfolk.

Well the bathroom, I see as a non issue.  We have doors for "intimacy"; well, occidental countries do, at least.  The changing room is a little different.
You haven't answered that part directly: do you think the majority of women would be fine with a man changing beside them while they are nude and would they feel as threatened as by taking an elevator alone with an unknown man, or having a random man walking behind them on the street at night?

[grumbler]

I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.

  Of course, California had to pass a law in 2016 requiring that all single-person restrooms be legally gender-neutral.  It must be a barbaric place as well, else such a law would be completely unnecessary.  If all bathrooms are legally gender-neutral, then you don't need to make some of them legally gender-neutral.

[viper37]

Your third point is what BLM fights against. The fact that they are black equates to dangerous to far too many people, and most importantly, police. By doing something that you or I would do without a second thought, they are perceived as "lethal". Not because of what they do or who they are, but because of the color of their skin.

I totally agree with that, and give them my total support, for what's it's worth.  I've never felt threatened by someone based on their looks, including the color of their skin. But I do not have the same cultural upbringing as many, having been raised mostly alone on construction sites for all my youth, even in larger city, living quite isolated from others.

Blacks are unique in that. They are the only race in the US that by its very existence is seen as "dangerous". And so, a movement was born to end that perception: Black Lives Matter. They and they alone have to daily contend with being dangerous for simply being. And that's what BLM is all about. And that is what negates your first two points.

My first two points are about perceptions of the movement.  They way it acts, it's mostly as if only black lives would matter, as if all Blacks were saints.  I think at the very least, there are just as many criminal blacks as criminal whites.  Maybe even a little bit more, due to how the US has shaped racial politics over the years, pushing black families more toward poverty than whites.

The point is, a cop will feel threatened and shoot.  A women walking in the street at night feels threatened, she steps aside and let the man walk in front of her.  It's the same reasoning, but the cop is armed, so he shoots. 


It goes back to training them the right way.  Don't wait until they've had 20 years exerience to give them racial sensitiviy classes, train them correctly to begin with.
And do not hesitate to tackle the union when they're the problem.

Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't willing to reform police, because they're calling to their base.  And the Democrats are unwilling to tackle the union problem. 

I don't see anything changing in the foreseeable future by holding protests.
If the current protesters want to change something, they will have to invest political parties and push for changes from the inside.

How about we don't define it? How about we allow others to decide for themselves where they are most comfortable going pee?

Because I'm not the one being bothered by it.  I do not feel threatened by a woman sharing an elevator with me, I do not feel threatened by a woman walking behind me at night, I do not feel threatened by a woman knocking at my door late at night, I do not feel threatened by much, actually.

It's not really up to me to decide who should enter a women's bathroom.  If you want to enter the male bathroom, go ahead, I don't care.

Who gets to decide for them where they belong?

Society, unfortunately.  We've decided to have seperate bathroom for men and women instead of unisex bathroom.  In many places that seems to mean women have a clean bathroom, no piss&shit on all the walls and floor, doors that lock and toilet paper.  Yeah, we have it that bad sometimes    

Honestly, I feel like you on the subject, but I am unsure the majority of women feel that way.  Imho, I am unqualified to decide who should or should not enter a women's bathroom.

I also had a friend in high school who was hella' fem and very flamboyantly gay. He never went to the men's room because he was far more likely to get his ass kicked there than in the girls' room. So he always went into the ladies' room with us. No big deal. There were stalls with doors. He couldn't have cared less if we were half-naked. Why does it matter if he's in the ladies' room? Where is the threat there?

I don't know.  Where's the threat in sharing an elevator with a man?  Where's the thread in having a man walking casually behind you at night?

There is way too much emphasis being put on something that seriously does not matter. Who the hell cares??

Apparently, lots of women care.  And you're the primary users of this space, not us...

[garbon]

I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.

  Of course, California had to pass a law in 2016 requiring that all single-person restrooms be legally gender-neutral.  It must be a barbaric place as well, else such a law would be completely unnecessary.  If all bathrooms are legally gender-neutral, then you don't need to make some of them legally gender-neutral.

Requiring there to be unisex bathrooms doesn't mean it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the opposite sex.

[garbon]

The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.

Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/  Not that i can see.  But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort.  Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.

As I said before:

Is the UK having problems with men pretending to be transgender and using that as a fig leaf to enter a woman's restroom?

If so, does it make sense to have it illegal to have someone legally considered a man entering a woman's bathroom? Or is the concern about things like lewd behaviour, voyeurism, and sexual assault - things that are already crimes?

If she wants to make people's lives harder, she needs to justify why that is necessary. It would also be good to explain what suddenly brought on her bathroom crusade given even shortly after being abused by her ex-husband it would have still been legally possible for her to encounter a man in a woman's bathroom.

[garbon]

https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f

As I pointed out in my last piece; in the UK — where both JKR and I live — trans women have used women's spaces longer than either of us have been alive, and have been legally protected to do so since 2010 (before that there was no clear law either way, though there were some protections for trans people, it has never been illegal). A Gender Recognition Certificate is not necessary to use women's spaces and it never has been, in fact using women's spaces for some time is required to obtain a GRC! If there was going to be a problem the moment that people were allowed into the facility they know is best for them then it would have already happened. It hasn't. All of the problems GC people propose with "Self ID" are always hypothetical, if it was going to happen, why hasn't it been happening for over a decade?

This is one of the most worrying pieces of misinformation put forward by her and by the GC movement as a whole. I, and many British trans people, are living in fear that the UK government is building up to trying to ban us from using public facilities. The reason they are claiming that trans women don't already use women's facilities is so they can frame taking away the rights trans people have today as "defending women's rights". Where do you think trans women have been weeing for the last 50 years?