Talk:J. K. Rowling

	This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Nothing on her Israel support

I absolutely gotta add something about that. I seem to remember she made some weird argument about how "Harry Potter wouldn't boycott Israel". Chillpilled (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

After having gone and written the section, I think she's just a two-stater. Thought she was all-in pro-Israel. Chillpilled (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh Rowling, you rotter

Oh Rowling, you rotter

Oh what have you done

You're fraternizing with far-right transphobes

And you think it's good fun

I knew she's become an absolute disgrace, somehow made the lazy expanded lore behind her magnum opus even worse and alienated the very demographic she once inspired by writing a successful seven-part story about an orphaned misfit raised by an abusive family who one day learns there's a whole underground society of others like him and then has to take on a terrorist group based on blind hate towards a vexing demographic for dumb reasons to avenge his slain parents and protect his new family made along the way- but I didn't know she had gone so far off the rails as to cozy up to IRL Death Eaters- namely the alt-right (only replace "mudbloods" with "tr-nn--s" and "blood traitors" with "gender traitors"), but the disgraces to the good name of feminism known as TERFS I already knew of. Instead of being remembered for penning one of the few book series that people actually read more than once these days, she will instead be remembered in posterity as the self-appointed leader of that pseudo-feminist attempt to perpetuate transphobia. Give an alt-righter an inch, and they will take a mile. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Length

We shouldn't sacrifice good content for less taxing reading (if a sentence must be wordy to convey itself fully, let it be wordy), but if there's a way to retain what's good while shortening parts that may be something we'd like to consider at some point. I may dive into such a task of summary on some boring day, myself... Chillpilled (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the Harry Potter sections could be its own article Ioe bidome (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chillpilled How about trimming it and creating a listicle with every time she was transphobic? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dunno. I did end up rewriting large swathes of this article. Not sure if I made it shorter but it's probably at least a better read than before. Also, she was more optics-focused, that is to say she mostly selected her battles carefully until recently, so such a listicle would have a lot of incidents that don't hold a candle to others. Big reason why I made the top hits section. Chillpilled (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like listicles. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lolita

Rowling says that she has read Lolita, you know the one, that in and of itself wouldn't be too much of an issue, except where she seems to say that it is a love story and not an example of an unreliable narrator. "There just isn't enough time to discuss how a plot that could have been the most worthless pornography becomes, in Nabokov's hands, a great and tragic love story, and I could exhaust my reservoir of superlatives trying to describe the quality of the writing." BumblingBuffoon (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but might be worth a short subsection under "Statements on sexual assault and abuse". Chillpilled (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I added this under the chronological timeline of her transphobia as a segue to her support of James Cantor. But I agree this could belong in a subsection in "Statements on sexual assault and abuse." This isn't an isolated case. Rowling has demonstrated an extremely questionable understanding of consent in other instances. She seemingly believes only AMAB people can commit sexual assault. And that belief seemingly rears its head in the HP books in a number of places (mainly in subplots involving women using love potions). She drew criticism for that even before she descended into TERFery. Burnt Toast (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That comment about UK rape law is wild but with Cantor, she actually unfollowed him soon after people told her about his pedophiles' advocacy. Genuinely the only time I've seen her do that with any of the harmful people she boosted before. So I don't think Cantor should be mentioned in the article. It's possible she's indirectly cited him before or something because he was a surprisingly key vector for transphobic apologetics in the topic of medicine at one point, but she unfollowed him. Chillpilled (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Rowling doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Especially not after she crucified Mermaids for taking on a relatively unknown academic trustee who had given a single Cantor-like presentation at a conference 11 years previously. She should've done "due diligence" on Cantor before expressing even passive approval of him in view of her massive audience. If there is a source for her unfollowing him, this could be added too. Burnt Toast (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It could have been used as an example of hypocrisy if we had a mention of the Stonewall trustee firing but we don't. But wait, what is this other org the Stonewall trustee was with? That wouldn't happen to be Prostasia would it? Because I know Cantor was with Prostasia. Chillpilled (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It was B4U-ACT. Jacob Breslow only spoke at the one conference, it seems, but his presentation was extremely sus, based on the abstract in the PinkNews article. Cantor has been actively involved in this area of research and activism. Breslow seemingly flirted with it over a decade ago, then moved on. There's a harm reduction argument that probably seems compelling at first – "let's treat this as a disease like addiction, so people are more likely to seek treatment" – before it hits that these orgs exist mainly for creeps to backpat each other. Probably worth mentioning this as an example of Rowling's hypocrisy. Also worth mentioning Rowling's bonkers understanding of peer review. Burnt Toast (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing about this other group, it's possible Prostasia was actually worse, since they actively created a Discord chatroom to put both 13 year olds and adult pedophiles in. (There were some untruths or half-truths about them spread by Reduxx and shoe0nhead, but that part was real.) This factors into a RW draft I've been editing on-and-off. Cantor talking about integrating a "P" into the gay community may have been wild even by the standards of these groups, and I did notice he didn't specifically repeat the "LGBTP" acronym. Made me wonder if his desire is literally to have: "LGBP drop the T". Rowling did unfollow him, you could confirm with any given tool to see if two people follow each other (if Muskrat didn't break them I suppose). It's maybe noteworthy she didn't openly acknowledge this at any point. Chillpilled (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)