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

[The Brain]

In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?

What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

[DGuller]

He just equated expressing condemnation of an idea with vigilante justice.  Not sure how you reason with that.

And I'm done here.  Thank you for revealing your colors early before I wasted a lot of time here under a misconception that you intended to have an honest conversation.

[merithyn]

Gotcha. But needing social media praise is very unwise, which goes back to other things I was saying. She needs or wants affirmation for her unpopular opinions and that path leads to madness.

She's very clearly a seriously insecure person who is desperate for the adulation of her fans. She will do this no matter what her opinion is. Unless she's universally loved, she will fight the fight. Unfortunately, no one is universally loved.

[Valmy]

being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.

Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people  expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?

Where would you consider the line crossed?

[Sheilbh]

And I think color blind casting is great, especially in stage plays where everything is not literal anyway. Though by also casting her children black it kind of suggested she the character was being made black retroactively. I mean the potters were not all color blind casted.

But it seemed to fit a pattern of her wanting to go back and make her work retroactively socially relevent to receive praise, which kind of fit a pattern of her needing praise and relevency...or at least that is the sense.

Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?

I agree and I think there's an argument around how much authority an author continues to have over their work and also the sort of sources of authority. My read on this is that they're all valid. From memory Harry and his family are white in the books, I think he's described as pallid from living under the stairs etc. Similarly the Weasleys are pretty white. But Hermione isn't described in that way which is why, before the films, I know people saw her as black and there's always been fans who read her that way. That only changed after the films - so I don't think it's retroactive to basically revert to the book's ambiguity when casting the play rather than treating the play as a sequel of the films.

But all of those are valid - I feel like Harry Potter's sort of the opposite of Star Wars right, the original work are these books and then there's various film adaptations, spin-offs plays etc. The film may depict a certain, but that's just an interpretation, albeit an authorised one. So the books have always been ambiguous about Hermione's race  - so she could be white or black. Similarly I think the books do imply something in Dumbledore's obsession with and closeness to Grindelwald - my annoyance with that is her coming out afterwards and saying he's gay, because I'd argue that's just one interpretation of an ambiguity and she's got no more right to define that than I do or the films do. As Roland Barthes famously wrote, JK Rowling is dead.

I believe she's only just ever said it but such leanings never made it into the films.

As I think the books imply a very close relationship that could be gay. But yeah that's definitely her retroactively stating something she didn't explicitly include and it's not in the films.

i am all for colour blind casting because at some point people will need to get over the fact that the range of skin/hair/eye colour range of people living in their countries have expanded since whatever period a movie represents, but you could walk into a right Twitter storm if you ended up colourblind-casting in the wrong colour direction.

Yeah and I sort of feel that's fair. Part of this is because of my ongoing rage at the amount of British talent that has to go to the US to get good roles. Daniel Kaluuya, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Thandie Newton, Idris Elba, David Oyelowo, Riz Ahmed etc have all said they went to America in large part because they did not get interesting roles in the UK (and there's a controversy around black Brits playing iconic African-Americans). So Ben-Adir said he'd get basically a lot of scripts for things like Gangs of London, Riz Ahmed similarly got scripts to play a terrorist.

A big issue in the UK, I think, is the dominance of period dramas and adaptations. So my approach would be that unless race is in some way central to the story like, say, a life of Olaudah Equiano, then the casting should be colour-blind. Completely unrelatedly and I know he's not British - but I think Jeffrey Wright would be a fantastic Poirot and I just want that to happen. And again - can't recommend the new David Copperfield enough as an example of how good this could be. I also think Andrea Arnold's adaptation of Wuthering Heights were she cast Heathcliff as mixed race, that decision actually added to the text (in the book Heathcliff is racially very ambiguous - he's picked up in a port city and I think described as having black curly hair and as looking like a "dark-skinned gipsy" or a "little Lascar" - most adaptations haven't really explored that angle).

But my issue is the lack of opportunities non-white actors get so I do think it's kind of fair to have an issue with non-white characters being played by white actors, becuase you're reducing an already limited pool of roles for no good reason.

It's a bit like with Milk I found it really annoying how few gay actors there were. And it's not because only gays can play gay, but it feels like Hollywood and professional sports are the last almost entirely straight parts of the entertainment industry. There are loads of LGBT actors in the theatre and in TV, I couldn't off the top of my head think of anyone who's a Hollywood star - maybe Kristen Stewart. And she was warned not to be seen publicly with her girlfriend or she might lose certain roles. Similarly I can think of at least one British actor who is gay and was always seen with his boyfriend while he worked in theatres in London who has basically gone back in the closet when he started doing films. So it's more that I just think if LGBT actors can't even get a chance in films about, say, Harvey Milk it feels like we're not going to reach the point where they get a chance to do anything else either.

[DGuller]

being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.

Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people  expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?

Where would you consider the line crossed?

As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression.  Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb.  Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian. 

[merithyn]

In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?

What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

Yes, I know. Doesn't make sense to me.

The application of attitude doesn't change because the concept of gender identity has. Women have still been abused and negated, even if the concept of what "woman" is has changed. One doesn't directly apply to the other. It's a weird way to see it.

[merithyn]

being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.

Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people  expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?

Where would you consider the line crossed?

As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression.  Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb.  Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian.

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

For instance, I have a list of stores that I won't shop at because I don't want my money supporting their causes. If asked, I'll explain why I won't go there, but I haven't gone online and advocated for others to do the same. Again, if asked, I'll explain on Facebook or Twitter, but it's not something I'm actively pushing on others. I have also let those businesses know why I won't be spending my money in their stores.

That, to me, is perfectly valid. But it appears that you don't consider it so. Am I mistaken on your opinion on this?

[Valmy]

Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?

Right. But if it was colorblind casting accounting for that kind of thing wouldn't be needed and surely not just Hermione would be different races as well yes?

[Valmy]

As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression.  Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb.  Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian. 

But personally deciding to just not read or support JK Rowling anymore is fine? Just deciding to not associate with another person anymore is fine? Is it only if you seek to enroll others in your action does it cross a line? Do I have that right?

[DGuller]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike.  Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.

[Valmy]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike.  Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.

So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?

[merithyn]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike.  Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.

[The Brain]

In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?

What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

Yes, I know. Doesn't make sense to me.

The application of attitude doesn't change because the concept of gender identity has. Women have still been abused and negated, even if the concept of what "woman" is has changed. One doesn't directly apply to the other. It's a weird way to see it.

If sex is real and only gender concepts and attitudes have changed, then she doesn't say anything. It starts "If sex isn't real...". My guess would be that someone claimed that sex isn't real (which wouldn't surprise me since many people can't grasp that something can exist without being binary), and that this triggered her statement.

[DGuller]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike.  Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.

So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?

Something else.  A boycott would be if you join a movement to not shop at Hobby Lobby, and also hassle others to not shop there either.

If my company does something unethical and I resign in protest, I'm not going on strike.  I'm doing something, but striking is not it.  If I get 75% of my colleagues to walk out of a job and demand changes, then I'm striking.  Boycott is more or less a strike by commercial counter-parties (not necessarily customers).