Where do we stand on Harry Potter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't support Rowling or Card, do what you want, like what you want.

But this is a public forum. And I didn't realize being considerate of others was such a heavy burden, why even asking for it, I might lose your sympathy and that would be the worst thing in the world. Surely such a great and stalwart ally, lost forever to the burden of ... not bringing up fiction created by someone who is participating in stochastic terrorism aimed at trans people. Truly I know the great forbearance and suffering you must toil under. Oh woe and lamentation, surely a most vile and criminal form of censorship is the treatment of others with respect!!! But I understand that the abominable act of asking anything of an ally is the surest way to lose their allegiance. Truly, such a Catch-22, as the comfort and safety of one's allies might be risked by actually asking them to do anything to prove they are allies! Oh, how all friendships are under the fairest of weather.
Another way to look at it:

If you dictate to your friends what media they should consume, and break friendships if they read, listen, watch or play something you don't like... are you really a friend?

I believe a Potter fan that wants to run a Hogwarts campaign, should be able to do so. And I believe they should be able to discuss that campaign on this forum, without us presuming they are horrible bigots who support Rowlings heinous point of view.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, but apparently forced to use men's restrooms and be incarcerated in men's prisons if jailed. And neither of those are going to be conducive to their health.
It really really is complicated, in a small % of issues/cases. Think body searches, safe refuge, sport and such. What if he prisoner in the case above is a multiple rapist ( they can't go in a women's prison, rest room, etc)
Hence a big law issue in Scotland at the moment for example, and the rest of the UK in due course.
 



Saracenus

Always In School Gamer
It's always so funny when people find out I'm from northern California and assume I mean SF when in actuality SF is a five-hour drive straight south from me.
Portlander here, my "cousin" was from Berzerkly and was up in your neck of the woods at Chico (U. of California)... Yeah, he was not a serious student... Party school!
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
Portlander here, my "cousin" was from Berzerkly and was up in your neck of the woods at Chico (U. of California)... Yeah, he was not a serious student... Party school!
Lol, my sister went to CSU Chico; last I heard they had chilled out a bit, but it definitely had a reputation...
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It really really is complicated, in a small % of issues/cases. Think body searches, safe refuge, sport and such. What if he prisoner in the case above is a multiple rapist ( they can't go in a women's prison, rest room, etc)
Hence a big law issue in Scotland at the moment for example, and the rest of the UK in due course.
I'm not sure it is that complicated. Surely prisons have dealt before with cis-gendered prisoners who have a history of sex crimes against same sex victims.
Sports can and should be dealt with on a sport-by-sport basis under the leadership of each sport's governing body.

But a significant part of the issue here is tarring every trans woman with the same brush as a very small percent of cases, no matter how sensationalized they have been by the press. Don't trans women deserve safer spaces than the male-dominated ones they no longer identify with and may, outwardly, no longer resemble? This is where Rowling and fellow transphobes are really falling down and her unceasing flogging of the issue fans the flames that lead to anti-trans legislation in Utah, South Dakota, Missouri, Florida, etc.
 

I've been thinking about this topic since it was posted. I don't feel that it is a good idea to ban mention of any IP which has problematic creators or producers--that's a lot of IP!--, but I hope it's very clear that we will ask people to leave if they espouse support for transphobic or racist views on this forum. So yes, you can mention Lethal Weapon, Cthulhu, the Lord of the Rings movies, Buffy, and, indeed, D&D, and so on. But when you do so, try to be aware that there are people involved with these properties who have done and said horrible things which affect your friends right here on these forums. The people you talk to about D&D with every day.

We want this place to be inclusive and welcoming, and we work hard to keep it that way, and we always expect our guests to respect each other. Personally, I'm very privileged and have never found myself in the position that many of our members do on a daily basis, but I try hard to understand how it feels to have your heroes say things which attack your very right to exist. I can't come close to imagining how it feels, but when my friends tell me how it makes them feel, I believe them.

Bolded the point for emphasis. It's important to remember that these issues affect people. Not faceless statistics, but people we know. People that have to deal with the consequences of people like Rowling's words and actions.

I guess "Go Woke, Go Broke" is just another form of projection?

It's always projection with them, isn't it?
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
If you dictate to your friends what media they should consume, and break friendships if they read, listen, watch or play something you don't like... are you really a friend?
I think it's presumptuous to assume that I dictate anything to my friends. I've made how I personally feel about it very clear, and they know how important this issue is not just to me but trans people everywhere, and they make their own choice.

And here's where I've got to be perfectly frank: if they are capable of placing their own entertainment above the rights of trans people, we weren't going to be particularly good friends to begin with.

The hard truth of living life as a heavily targeted marginalized group is that it's a constant game of calculating who in your life you can count on in a pinch. Who will have your back in moments of oppression. Who is safe. And there's a lot of factors that go into that calculation that is constantly running in the back of our minds. It's not always easy to tell. But I see someone rocking a Ravenclaw scarf in this the year of someone's Lord 2023, and that answers a lot of questions for me.
 


I'm not sure it is that complicated. Surely prisons have dealt before with cis-gendered prisoners who have a history of sex crimes against same sex victims.
Sports can and should be dealt with on a sport-by-sport basis under the leadership of each sport's governing body.

But a significant part of the issue here is tarring every trans woman with the same brush as a very small percent of cases, no matter how sensationalized they have been by the press. Don't trans women deserve safer spaces than the male-dominated ones they no longer identify with and may, outwardly, no longer resemble?
No. It really is complicated other wise the progressive Bill brought into law in Scotland that is not going to work well, in the small % of cases, would be fine

The concern is not the trans-person, who in theory is protected by the same law as everyone else, trans rights are human rights BUT the predator who would be able to access areas they shouldn't and are a real threat to women's safety ( safety they have fought bloody hard for over the decades).
I don't know the answer. It is complicated so I can see both sides arguement. It is the minority cases that test law the most.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
This isn't the article I was looking for on it, but there are several out there with more detail.


The one that boggles me is when a place has two single user bathrooms and feels the need to have one be male and one female. I wonder a bit if sussing out why that is still a thing would explain anything useful about attitudes, and now am tempted to keep track of which places do one each single-user M and W and which just have two single-user bathrooms for anyone.

The scouts in the US, for example, have had their multi-user facilities separated by gender and age for decades. If the goal is protection, i wonder what the statistics say about children using the men's room in public vs. anything else similar.

And then I wonder about elevators and stair wells.
 
Last edited:

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Lol, my sister went to CSU Chico; last I heard they had chilled out a bit, but it definitely had a reputation...

Whenever I see the name of that school, I always go through the exact same thought process (because I'm a goldfish):

1. Cal State Chico. Huh, that reminds me of Chico and the Man!

2. I wonder if that show holds up?

3. I should probably go and look!

4. Oh yeah, that was a show about a Mexican-Americans. And it was made in the 70s!

5. ..... yeah, I probably don't need to look.
 

p_johnston

Adventurer
No. It really is complicated other wise the progressive Bill brought into law in Scotland that is not going to work well, in the small % of cases, would be fine

The concern is not the trans-person, who in theory is protected by the same law as everyone else, trans rights are human rights BUT the predator who would be able to access areas they shouldn't and are a real threat to women's safety ( safety they have fought bloody hard for over the decades).
I don't know the answer. It is complicated so I can see both sides arguement. It is the minority cases that test law the most.
So the problem with a nuanced discussion is that it requires both sides to be arguing in good faith. Right now one sides stance is "trans people are evil and shouldnt exist." So arguments like yours, no matter how well meaning, are going to be used to try and eliminate Trans people altogether. So quite frankly for now it is that simple.

Edit: if this crosses the line into to political let me know and ill take it down.
 

Undrave

Legend
If you dictate to your friends what media they should consume, and break friendships if they read, listen, watch or play something you don't like... are you really a friend?
Framing it as 'something you don't like' is INCREDIBLY reductive and diminish the harm that JK Rowling is actively engaged in.

But to answer your question, if your friend finds it more important to feed their nostalgia over standing with you against oppression, THEY weren't really friends.

Besides, people stop being friends all the time over various things. Nobody's owed friendship and you shouldn't be obligated to force an incompatible friendship anyway.
 


So the problem with a nuanced discussion is that it requires both sides to be arguing in good faith. Right now one sides stance is "trans people are evil and shouldnt exist." So arguments like yours, no matter how well meaning, are going to be used to try and eliminate Trans people altogether. So quite frankly for now it is that simple.

Edit: if this crosses the line into to political let me know and ill take it down.
But not JKRs. She has called for no one's "elimination" though evils one have called for hers.
I know nothing of how bad things beyond the UK (but I can imagine, well maybe I can't, how bad things are elsewhere).
The true enemy of "Trans people" is clearly religion, which is my last word on this complex matter
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
If you dictate to your friends what media they should consume, and break friendships if they read, listen, watch or play something you don't like... are you really a friend?
If your friend says "hey, this makes me uncomfortable and worried about my personal safety," and you insist on continuing the behavior are you really a friend?

And, when balancing the two harms, which is the bigger deal? "I want to talk about a YA novel" or "I want to not think about the possibility that there are people out there right now who want to murder me?"
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
This isn't the article I was looking for on it, but there are several out there with more detail.


The one that boggles me is when a place has two single user bathrooms and feels the need to have one be male and one female. I wonder a bit if sussing out why that is still a thing would explain anything useful about attitudes, and now am tempted to keep track of which places do one each single-user M and W and which just have two single-user bathrooms for anyone.

The scouts in the US, for example, have had their multi-user facilities separated by gender and age for decades. If the goal is protection, i wonder what the statistics say about children using the men's room in public vs. anything else similar.

And then I wonder about elevators and stair wells.
Here's what everyone wants to ignore: Nearly all of the abuse and sexual violence children will be the victims of (and adults, for that matter) happens at home, by someone they know. There are very few boogeymen hiding in bushes or bathroom stalls trying to hurt people. Those people are doing it in their homes or the homes of family and friends.

It's a super-uncomfortable truth that the person to be scared of is not the "other" but the people that it's a lot harder to confront or even acknowledge as a danger.

We shouldn't be deforming our society to prevent harms by largely non-existent boogeymen and we certainly shouldn't be tormenting scapegoats because of our unwillingness to acknowledge this truth.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Here's what everyone wants to ignore: Nearly all of the abuse and sexual violence children will be the victims of (and adults, for that matter) happens at home, by someone they know. There are very few boogeymen hiding in bushes or bathroom stalls trying to hurt people. Those people are doing it in their homes or the homes of family and friends.

It's a super-uncomfortable truth that the person to be scared of is not the "other" but the people that it's a lot harder to confront or even acknowledge as a danger.

We shouldn't be deforming our society to prevent harms by largely non-existent boogeymen and we certainly shouldn't be tormenting scapegoats because of our unwillingness to acknowledge this truth.
I'm guessing that is true of where women suffered the most violence back when the laws about bathrooms were put in place a century and a half ago (or whatnot) too.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top