JK Rowling supports conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people

[Ricardo 7,650]

can she stop already? 

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

Just Karen Rowling is literally CANCELLED...

[Guest]

LMAO BYE

[Mr Oak 5,649]

1 hour ago, mezzanine said:

well, at least potterheads will go away

 

don't get me wrong, i loved harry potter when they released the books then the movies... 10 years ago... or so

 

now we can let all this mess die

with her

 

[Franch Toast 25,224]

5 hours ago, OMonster said:

This just looks like a case of bad luck. 

JK has explained the following: 

"I chose Robert because it’s one of my favourite men’s names, because Robert F Kennedy is my hero and because, mercifully, I hadn’t used it for any of the characters in the Potter series or The Casual Vacancy.

Galbraith came about for a slightly odd reason.  When I was a child, I really wanted to be called ‘Ella Galbraith’, and I’ve no idea why.  I don’t even know how I knew that the surname existed, because I can’t remember ever meeting anyone with it.  Be that as it may, the name had a fascination for me.  I actually considered calling myself L A Galbraith for the Strike series, but for fairly obvious reasons decided that initials were a bad idea." 

The issue with her explanation is that what is the likelihood that she didn't do an Internet search just to make sure there wasn't another author with this name? And if she did so, this other Robert Galbraith would have come up. 

I mean, when I was a kid, I thought I'd write books under the pen name of Elizabeth Montgomery, but then at some point I learned that this was the name of the actress from Bewitched and realized it was better not to adopt the name of someone who was already famous (and this was before the Internet). I find it hard to believe that she didn't know. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,287]

I'm hoping in the back of my mind that it's just a case of her not reading something through enough to get a good handle on it before supporting, the same thing she did regarding the Maya situation. In itself, the idea of counselling a child to deal with the body they were born in in the sense that it's a case of finding out if they're truly trans and/or require transition is fine. Anyone diagnosed as trans should go through counselling regardless. But I don't think she realises that those against genuine trans counselling believe so because they disagree with cisgender identities, probably think being transgender is made up and they're also supportive of gay conversion. For Jo, who has been very open about her support of the gays, most notably in retroactively making Dumbledore gay, I don't think she's considered this bit. I'm not usually one for telling people not to use their voice but I think she really needs to stop using Twitter. She doesn't seem to take everything into consideration before responding or liking something.

I'm on the fence about her after this now. I think I'll need to just see how things progress and how far she takes this before making a final judgement. But I see no problem in still enjoying her work.

Whatever her beliefs, there's no reason you can't still enjoy her work. The series, both book and movies finished a long time ago. Fans already gave her the money long ago, that can't be taken back, so you may as well just enjoy what she created. She won't know if you're still enjoying her work in the privacy of your own home, after all. If you don't like her anymore, that's your choice, but please do not cruelly, publicly cancel people just for having a problematic viewpoint. If they actually do horrible actions based on this viewpoint, that's one thing, but I don't think we should end people just because they don't perfectly align with our views. If you think someone's close-minded, just don't go near them. It's that simple. It's hard to see someone be called the c-word, particularly a woman, when she's not even commited any monstrous actions. There's no need for that.

6 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

Harry Potter isn't without its problems too tho - people are just less aware of them, but readwithcindy has pointed out that it's kinda fatphobic first of all - she does not describe the Dursleys in a flattering way, and I mean their physical appearance...

There are also the goblins, and... Rita Skeeter... who is, uh... heavy jawed... with big mannish hands... spies on children... and I oop 

I think that's just taking it a bit too far. Describing an overweight character in a bad light is in no way a sign that someone is fatphobic. An author has to create the perfect image in the reader's mind, so they sometimes go a bit overboard because it's not a visual medium. I remember that in Roald Dahl's Matilda, he decided to randomly, unnecessarily start giving a disparaging description of Matilda's father right after her berated her, likely to reinforce that the dad was ugly inside and out. And fatphobia was hardly considered a problem back in the 90's when Jo wrote this, we've got to put this in context. As for the goblins, it was just people's overactive imaginations linking it with Jewish stereotypes. Goblins have, in their lore, always been hoarders and guarders of treasure, in fact, most mythical creatures have it written into their lore that they create and guard precious stones, jewels, money, etc. It would be totally natural, therefore, for a magical world that operates somewhat like the human world, to have goblins running the banks. And as for Rita's description, Jo basically described any wicked or stuck-up woman in her books in a negative light, including thin, pretty, white, blonde women. Like I said, just a way of helping to imagine what the character must have looked like. I doubt Jo was overly thinking about transgender people from the 90's through 2007, they weren't as mainstream or talked about back then and there was certainly little to no education about them.

[Squeeshy Keety 9,908]

I'm only surprised she didn't do it sooner

Let this be a lesson that you can spot a TERF from a mile away 

[StarstruckIllusion 41,993]

Thinking about how lucky I am to have never gotten into Harry Potter, or consumed a single piece of its media 🥰

[swooning 424]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm hoping in the back of my mind that it's just a case of her not reading something through enough to get a good handle on it before supporting,

I had to stop reading your reply after this. What? She is FULLY aware of what she is doing. The fact that you think otherwise, even the tiniest bit, is absolutely delusional.

[JustHMLover2 706]

Would never again buy official merch, dvds, books by this sick mind... She should go to therapy herself before hopping on social media again

[KillerMonster 2,360]

Its sad to see someone as famous and successful as her, full of so much hate.  Guess money can’t buy you a good personality.

[Biden Harris 2024 1,451]

no one cares lady, go back in your hole in the ground.

[Musicisfreedom 5,837]

30 minutes ago, KillerMonster said:

Its sad to see someone as famous and successful as her, full of so much hate.  Guess money can’t buy you a good personality.

Sadly it usually works out that way. Makes me wonder how many other super successful people are hiding their problematic views. 

[paradox 4,567]

classic case of keep it cute or put it on mute

as if her comments on the trans community weren't enough, this has well and truly sealed the deal

done with her

[StrawberryBlond 13,287]

56 minutes ago, swooning said:

I had to stop reading your reply after this. What? She is FULLY aware of what she is doing. The fact that you think otherwise, even the tiniest bit, is absolutely delusional.

People can get the wrong end of the stick, even well-meaning ones. It happens all the time. How do you think naive people end up getting sucked into toxic mindsets? Certain people just know how to dress up their ideology to make it sound reasonable but once you're in, you see what it's really all about. Even if Jo is transphobic, I really don't see her as a hardliner who'll actively try to sabotage, wrongly accuse, harass or attack transpeople. She's just a bit misguided and is making the wrong choice of publicly supporting stuff online, where everyone can see what she's doing. If she had just kept all her thoughts to herself, none of this would've happened in the first place and we would have gone the rest of our lives never knowing what she thought. She's essentially harmless, is what I'm saying. It's the people who actually pose a danger to transpeople who we should be cancelling.