a harry potter fan's guide to navigating pride month
a harry potter fan's guide to navigating pride month
You're viewing a single thread.
I think these hard line stances do more harm than good.
My wife and I are active in not supporting any new things, but to talk about how you think it's morally wrong to even talk about the franchise is going to alienate a ton of people.
I feel fine talking about it, and the memories I had with it. Because everyone I surround myself with is completely aligned that Harry Potter was meaningful when we were kids and also JK Rowling is a complete fucking asshat.
This sort of purity testing has got to stop. If mentioning the name of Harry Potter marks someone as a transphobe who is equally as bad as politicians actively stripping them of their rights... The movement will never build a coalition.
Saying that financially supporting JK Rowling is actively harming the trans community is a reasonable argument. Saying that talking about Harry Potter, even if you note that JK Rowling sucks, makes you an outright transphobe is not reasonable to me.
If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you're not really an ally. You're just using "optics" as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don't think anyone falls for it.
Sorry for the shift in tone here but this is absurd...
I will continue to show up when it matters and do things like actively promote a great documentary on the day trans people's rights were stripped away from Iowans because of our dumbass legislature, because I cried watching friends of mine in that room being actively hurt by a government that should protect them. And continue to do the hard work to change the minds of bigoted people in my community, but yes let's pretend I'm just virtue signaling on an anonymous forum for "optics". I am actually doing real work and I won't apologize for not having patience for people saying I don't do enough because I say mentioning maybe Harry Potter in the proper context is probably fine. It's not the thing we need people paying attention to right now.
There's so much more hurt out there. If we boycotted Harry Potter entirely and wiped it from existence in an instant, the average trans persons life doesn't get suddenly get better.
It's fucking irritating. We're wasting breath talking about one stupid fucking lady and an imaginary wizard pretending it's a leading issue for the trans movement. You can hate me for saying it, but I'm fighting for bigger change than trying to make JK Rowling irrelevant. I would rather raise awareness about the systemic harm that I'm actively witnessing in laws being passed removing trans people's protected status. That's a FAR bigger issue.
If mentioning the name of Harry Potter marks someone as a transphobe who is equally as bad as politicians actively stripping them of their rights…
literally nobody is saying this. you aren't listening. stop pretending to be my ally until you decide to hear what we say.
until then keep your stupid butthurt strawman bullshit to yourself.
I love trans people, and I actively fight for them and their rights.
eat shit.
Too bad, trans people are more important than your pottertreats. If trans people say something is hurting them just stop doing it. Don't get into the nitty gritty of "how much harm does it do really?" make as wide a distance as you can to it.
As for this specific instance its not even hard to see how it is harming trans people: talking about hp keeps it in the spotlight which generats more sales.
Why wouldn't you purge the franchise that funds trans genocide from your life??
I want to be respectful here, but this has a lot of issues embedded in it.
This kind of rhetoric rises from what I've called the Authoritarian Left, which is an immensely detrimental wing. It's a group where there is no nuance.
You say that if a trans person says it's hurting them I should stop doing it. OK, but what if a republican says it? Now suddenly I should ignore them? You can't base your entire ideology on what members of groups say or demand that others adhere to yours simply because you think you're right.
I love trans people, and I actively fight for them and their rights. But why? I'll tell you, it's not because Democrats told me to love them, or a religious leader, or anyone in politics. I looked at the world critically and found their cause worthy.
I'm a durable ally. I'll stick with it when it's not cool or trendy, or when it comes at a cost. But that's because I arrived at those truths myself.
To loop all the way back to the premise - if talking about Harry Potter at all hurts Trans people, then this post hurts trans people. If you disagree with that, then nuance exists. And I'm saying in the nuance of how and who I talk about any topic with, I know and understand that those people understand the situation.
I don't make public posts about Harry Potter. I often talk about how JK Rowling is a garbage person. My friends have a Harry Potter party that they've been hosting for years, and every person there is of a similar mindset that trans people deserve so much more than they are getting.
You have to allow more than one idea in your head at the same time. If you're making the rule "talking about Harry Potter in any way, at any time, makes you an active enemy of the trans movement", then that's not a place I want to be associated with.
If you want advice - focus on how JK Rowling is harming people. Elevate that as much as you can. When you make these purity tests, you make people not give a shit because it makes it impossible to adhere to the strict and narrow path you say is OK.
This authoritarian left wing of democrats is what got Trump elected. They are so hard nosed on every issue they completely isolate people and make these issues harder to fight for, not easier. You're heart is in the right place, but we live in a world full of nuance, and the real trick is not scolding people into adherence, but it's coalition building and asking people to think critically about their choices. They have to find their beliefs, you can't just demand them.
You have written your comment beautifully. That's it, that's all I wanted to tell you.
Signed, a new follower of your Authoritarian Left term, and another durable ally.
I appreciate it.
There was a part of me that got tired of being shouted down because I wasn't whatever they wanted me to be. Or being told that I can't have an opinion because I'm not one of the people affected.
I mean generally I agree with that. As a white dude, it's not OK for me to pretend that my opinion on the treatment of black women is accurate, or even that I can fathom what that is like. However, there is some level of voice I need to have to be a part of the movement.
There was a massive rise in this sentiment that people needed to support these groups they weren't a member of but only if they were completely silent. You need to build a movement and people generated apathy on some topics. I remember sort of giving up talking about things because I had every so slightly different perspectives, and I would get cast into the "you aren't a real ally" bucket.
I'm also not convinced I'm right all the time either... I'm constantly listening and changing my perspective, but you need to leave room for people to do so. But that's what I mean by building durability. My beliefs in trans rights are strong because I have challenged, listened, and adapted. They are truly my beliefs, not just things I'm told I need to believe in.
This kind of rhetoric rises from what I’ve called the Authoritarian Left, which is an immensely detrimental wing. It’s a group where there is no nuance.
There is no nuance that you are aware of that the trans people that are calling for a ban of HP haven't already thought of. It's their lived experience after all. They know so many more nuances to this, or any other trans issue than you or I do. I don't know how much time you spend in the discussions of the so-called "👻Authoritarian👻 Left" but I've found them to be immensely nuanced. Cis people don't get a contradictory opinion on what harms trans people and what doesn't, simple as.
You say that if a trans person says it’s hurting them I should stop doing it. OK, but what if a republican says it? Now suddenly I should ignore them?
It's not just one trans person though is it? It's a pretty widely held opinion in the trans community afaict. That bit about some hypothetical republican didn't make sense to me, no idea what you're trying to say here.
I love trans people, and I actively fight for them and their rights.
Maybe a bit more listening is due? A good start would be Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue.
I’m a durable ally. I’ll stick with it when it’s not cool or trendy, or when it comes at a cost.
Except when that cost is giving up Hahree Pawttah apparently.
To loop all the way back to the premise - if talking about Harry Potter at all hurts Trans people, then this post hurts trans people.
Talk about "no nuance", obviously this post isn't suggesting that the mere mentioning of the name is causing trans people worldwide psychic pain. But not purging Harry Potter from your life, giving space to a franchise that is used to hunt trans people is actively harmful. Wouldn't you be suspicious of someone who is still a huge "The apprentice" fan? Or a huge "Tesla" fan (" Oh I'm not buying their cars, but I still admire them!!")? Similar sentiments apply here.
You have to allow more than one idea in your head at the same time. If you’re making the rule “talking about Harry Potter in any way, at any time, makes you an active enemy of the trans movement”, then that’s not a place I want to be associated with.
More generalizations from the nuance-haver, I think it's addressed above but just to reiterate, its about purging a franchise from your life that is having a toxic effect on the world.
If you want advice - focus on how JK Rowling is harming people.
I'll take my advice on fighting for the trans cause from trans people thanks.
This authoritarian left wing of democrats is what got Trump elected.
Source? I don't believe that the democrats even have a left wing, much less an 👻authoritarian👻 one, much much less one that is powerful enough to have decisive swing in the presidential election.
the real trick is not scolding people into adherence
I'm gonna keep telling people that are platforming fascists that they are platforming fascists. If they continue to do it, I can then know where they stand.
I'm trans, I have Gender Dysphoria and I've been out for 15+ years. I disagree with your way of approaching things, you are alianating allies and you live in a clear online bubble if you think most of us agree with your aggressive, arrogant, tactics.
Also, I enjoy HP due to childhood nostalgia and have watched it here and there as an adult. I just don't support HP financially and that's OK... Being a control freak that thinks cis people don't deserve to voice their opinion if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours is toxic to allies and to other trans people who can clearly disagree with you and your little sample of an online clique's opinion. You don't speak for most of us (I'm sure there's various opinions within our community that aren't 100% in agreement with you, nuance exists in the real world) and you certainly don't speak for all of us.
Keep it about yourself only next time instead of talking for others, least you make yourself look like a fool and a tool again.
You're actively alienating people from the movement you say you're a part of.
You are doing more damage than I am, and continuing to alienate people over your perception of a strict adherence to what is right is not helping.
You're trying to use childish spelling to say I can't get over not having Harry Potter. I'm not even arguing it's good. I probably bring it up maybe once a year? And pretty much always with a caveat of wishing the author wasn't such an asshole. Yet that isn't enough for your purity test apparently. I would reflect on the fact that you need allies that you don't agree with to build a movement. Right now you're narrowing your scope to a tiny percentage of people, all because you can't imagine that maybe you aren't fully and totally correct on this topic, and you want to try and belittle me into agreeing with you.
I don't think I'll continue the conversation from here. I hope you limit further damage and alienation to people trying to be on your side.
People that don't listen to trans people, but only consider themselves allies to make themselves feel better, so they can enjoy their transphobic treats while still patting each other on the back are detrimental to any movement and should be gotten rid of. And if you don't even enjoy hp that much why are you coming to it's defense so hard? If there are legit arguments as to why harry potter is so fucking important to someones life let that person speak up. Or if they can't relay their message. You're deplatforming them as well as trans people only to "defend the movement" from those "purists" that want a transphobic franchise squashed and want to put trans peoples arguments front and center.
My "strict adherence to what is right" is merely "listen to what trans people are saying, then do that". That is it.
you want to try and belittle me into agreeing with you.
I want you to center trans people and not some hypothetical allies that might or might not "join the movement". In any argument about whether something is good or not for trans people it's trans peoples voices, and only trans peoples voices, that matters. If you don't argue from a trans perspective it doesn't matter. The allies perspective is irrelevant, our job is to make trans peoples voices heard and frequently, almost always really, this includes telling cis people to stfu.
it does seem extremist as a perspective, but that extremist might think talking about the franchise is akin to marketing or a more passive or subtle way of the franchise receiving funding.
Probably a better argument is that JK Rowling is not as influential as some anti-trans activists, and our behavior and norms should ideally be rational and reflect those priorities.
I agree with you that coalition building is important, and in this particular case probably more important to trans rights than strict adherence to rules like never speaking of Harry Potter.
JK Rowling is probably the most influential anti-trans activist.
I think she's the most famous anti-trans activist, but that's not the same as being the most influential. You might watch ContraPoints' videos on JK Rowling, she discusses the analogy of JK Rowling to Anita Bryant (a famous homophobe)
here is her first video on JK Rowling establishing that she is indeed a transphobe, there was a time when a lot of people wouldn't accept that Rowling was actually transphobic
and then her second video covering the "witch trials" of Rowling as a transphobe.
In the end I agree with ContraPoints that JK Rowling has outsized hate directed at her relative to the harm she actually does, and that there is a misogynist tendency for people to target a woman to take out their frustrations on. Marie Antoinette is another example of this - the perceptions of her as a villain exceeded her actual crimes so to speak.
My point isn't to say Rowling is not a transphobe or not dangerous to trans folks, etc. - I just believe there are plenty of anti-trans activists who are more successful as activists and are more influential than JK Rowling, even if they don't end up in the headlines as much. That is, they are getting more done to strip trans folks of their rights than JK Rowling, and that's what I meant by "influential" - as in having power and influence to achieve the political goals of the anti-trans movement.
Matt Walsh for example has basically made a career of advocating against trans folks - creating anti-trans propaganda like What is a Woman?, and going to state legislatures to help pass laws against trans rights. I think he is less famous than JK Rowling, and has a smaller platform - but I would argue he has been more successful at advancing the anti-trans movement than Rowling, and the tangible harms from him are greater.
As far as I can tell, JK Rowling has primarily tweeted her support for the anti-trans movement, then she started funding women-only spaces that are trans-exclusionary, and only recently (as in since last year) has started a fund to help anti-trans legal cases. None of those activities are anywhere as "influential" or effective as the anti-trans activism by others who have actually influenced legislatures and had laws passed to deny healthcare and legal rights.
I would even say Chloe Cole has done more to advance the anti-trans movement than Rowling, for example. She is flown across the U.S. and now across the world to speak on the news and in legislative sessions to help anti-trans laws to be passed.
It's obvious Rowling is transphobic and is now using her influence to advance the anti-trans movement, I just think the perception of her influence is greater than her actual accomplishments as an anti-trans advocate.
Trump alone has done more to undo trans rights recently than anyone else, people I know personally have lost access to HRT as an adult because of his executive orders. Rowling has never accomplished anything that significant AFAIK.
ContaPoints does a better job evaluating some of this in her videos, I know they are long but I think they're worth watching and considering.
These are good points. Fair enough, I would retract my statement to her being perhaps the most famous instead of most influential. Fame of course has its own influence though, so it's still a big problem. A win against JK rowling could possibly be better than a win against Matt Walsh.
I disagree that it's misognyistic to have such an opinion of JK Rowling. In fact, I think it is misogynistic to suggest that because she's a woman, we shouldn't take her at her word for fear that our hatred of her might be motivated by misogyny instead of rationality.
I would agree it's not misogynistic to think JK Rowling is one of the most infamous transphobes, but that wasn't quite ContraPoints' argument. I am admittedly sharing the conclusion without providing her argument, and I'm actually in the hospital right now recovering from surgery so my head is a bit fuzzier than usual. If you watch those videos it should cover that territory though, in case you are interested. Either way I get what you mean about Rowling being so famous and influential in her transphobia, I tend to agree with you.
EDIT: it's the second video, the Witch Trials of JK Rowling that has the argument I'm talking about, the way that women bigots in particular are such popular targets of outrage. The first chapter of that video is entirely about Anita Bryant as an example.
I do enjoy ContraPoints. I saw one of those videos, I'll check out the other one. Cheers
Yeah I've got to firmly agree on that one. Her fame, and the fact that she created such a beloved franchise, gives her a lot of influence. Most people haven't heard of the likes of say, Posie Parker, especially outside of the UK.
ah, perhaps "influential" is not the best word choice on my part - I guess what I meant by that was not most famous or reaching the most people, but rather the most successful in their anti-trans advocacy, i.e. Rowling hasn't had the same kind of influence on trans rights as other anti-trans activists like Matt Walsh, and even Posie Parker I would argue has been more successful at achieving goals of the anti-trans movement than Rowling. Rowling is more famous as a transphobe and in that sense I agree with you she has a bigger platform and can bring more people into the anti-trans movement.
I don't know, I still don't agree with that simply by the fact she's donated such large sums of money to the cause...
The president of the United States is a pretty open anti trans activist and has made deliberate efforts to use being anti trans as a way to whip up his base
I don't think he's as influential though. He has a wide-ranging influence over his base, but they already are full of hatred. She's able to say the quiet parts quietly a lot better, and I think is more likely to radicalise new people to her cause.
I personally haven’t heard anyone go from being neutral to anti trans from jk Rowling bringing up a new perspective but instead have heard people from both the right and the left criticize her. Trump on the other hand radicalized the average bush era Republican into the MAGA cult we see today that is unafraid to openly show hate
I guess if you're not up to date with the politics of the UK that it would seem like he had a much larger influence than her. We are talking about trans politics only here, don't forget.
To put it in a different perspective, look at how many people that don't agree with Trump's politics that interact with his businesses, compared to the same for JK.