Author Topic: Daniel Radcliffe Responds to J.K. Rowling’s Tweets on Gender Identity  (Read 1351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 31,394
  • Reputation: +240/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
JK Rowling and the publisher's staff revolt

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8424029/amp/JK-Rowling-publishers-revolt-Workers-publishing-house-Hachette-threaten-tools.html

Daily Mail/ Added by Sam Greenhill June 16, 2020

"Publishing staff working on JK Rowling’s latest book threatened to down tools yesterday in protest at her views on gender."

***************************************************************************

Maybe hitting her in the pocketbook will be what it takes to make her see the light.
Veteran, US Army

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
"Publishing staff working on JK Rowling’s latest book threatened to down tools yesterday in protest at her views on gender."

If true, then to be quite honest I don't see reason in attacking an individual like what is happening for her personal views. Or for expressing them. I thought freedom of speech was a basic human right?

At least that would seem be indicated by the second paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights....

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

and clearly spelled out by its article 19:

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.



Or... does that right only apply to those whom one happens to agree with? Something like "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, but some have more freedom of opinion and expression than others?"

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Online Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 31,394
  • Reputation: +240/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
"Publishing staff working on JK Rowling’s latest book threatened to down tools yesterday in protest at her views on gender."

If true,

Of course it's true.

Quote
then to be quite honest I don't see reason in attacking an individual like what is happening for her personal views. Or for expressing them.

No one is being attacked, people are just expressing (their personal views) that they don't want to participate in being Rowling's mouthpiece.

Quote
I thought freedom of speech was a basic human right?

At least that would seem be indicated by the second paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights....

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

and clearly spelled out by its article 19:

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.



Or... does that right only apply to those whom one happens to agree with? Something like "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, but some have more freedom of opinion and expression than others?"

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

All I'm seeing is that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequence. Rowling is expressing herself. Many others are expressing that they find her views unacceptable. Freedom of speech for everyone... isn't that what the latter part of your post is talking about?
Veteran, US Army

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
Many others are expressing that they find her views unacceptable. Freedom of speech for everyone... isn't that what the latter part of your post is talking about?

Yes. I guess you're right. The Supreme Court did after all rule in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop bakery owner Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to the shop owner's religious beliefs.

And by downing their tools the publishing staff is acting no differently—just expressing their disapproval of JK Rowling's beliefs.

My apologies. I guess we all do have the right to do the same to any customer we disapprove of. I should have looked at precedent.

Online Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 31,394
  • Reputation: +240/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
People in business are vulnerable to losing money based on their decisions and stances. As the goal of a business is to make money, one has to question the wisdom of such decisions and stances... and the people who make and take them. LGBTIQ+ money is just as green.

It should also be noted that the article that you linked to stated that:

The court stated that it may face the constitutional question in future cases that present different circumstances -- Monday's ruling is likely not the final word.

Veteran, US Army

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
People in business are vulnerable to losing money based on their decisions and stances. As the goal of a business is to make money, one has to question the wisdom of such decisions and stances... and the people who make and take them. LGBTIQ+ money is just as green.

I agree. Our money is just as green as anyone else's. Which is why none of us should care if someone acts toward us for being LGBTIQ+ like the publishing staff is now doing to J. K. Rowling. After all, we can always go somewhere else, just like she can.

Unless of course she actually has an exclusive contract with the publishing house... in which case they may be harming her due to her beliefs. Just like they would be harming anyone LGBTIQ+ with an exclusive contract, should they refuse service for that reason.

Edit: Grammar
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 07:46:06 am by zirconia »

Online Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 31,394
  • Reputation: +240/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
I added to my post concurrently with you quoting me.

As a transgender person under the same umbrella as all LGBTIQ+ people, I'm left wondering why you aren't pleased with the people lobbying for us?

Veteran, US Army

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
Devlyn,

As a transgender person under the same umbrella as all LGBTIQ+ people, I'm left wondering why you aren't pleased with the people lobbying for us?

I am not at all displeased. I was just initially concerned about the publishing staff's denial of service to J. K. Rowling.

However, as I readily admitted, my initial stance was wrong and yours right. As you correctly stated, freedom of speech is for everyone. And provided that their denial of service is a form of expression, it should of course be protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 19.

At least provided that J.K. Rowling is not harmed by it, and is free to find someone else to serve her.

But of course we must then accept that applies to the other side as well. Or—in your view should such rights be allowed for some and denied to others?

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Online Devlyn

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 31,394
  • Reputation: +240/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • devlynmarie@susans.org
Devlyn,

As a transgender person under the same umbrella as all LGBTIQ+ people, I'm left wondering why you aren't pleased with the people lobbying for us?

I am not at all displeased. I was just initially concerned about the publishing staff's denial of service to J. K. Rowling.

However, as I readily admitted, my initial stance was wrong and yours right. As you correctly stated, freedom of speech is for everyone. And provided that their denial of service is a form of expression, it should of course be protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 19.

At least provided that J.K. Rowling is not harmed by it, and is free to find someone else to serve her.

But of course we must then accept that applies to the other side as well. Or—in your view should such rights be allowed for some and denied to others?

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

I'll go out on a limb and guess that the publisher will honour the contract signed with Rowling. This is, at this moment, about the workers. I can't speak for the company, but perhaps they might shuffle the workforce or outsource the job?

As to future contracts, well, who knows? Some companies have done exemplary things to support progressive stances.

Nivea Skincare Accused of Homophobia: 'We Don't Do Gay'

https://www.newsweek.com/nivea-homophobic-gay-1446899

"FCB, one of the largest advertising agencies in the world, has parted ways with Nivea, amid allegations the skincare brand rejected an image of two men touching hands.

***********************************************************************************

A good time to suggest that anyone using Nivea products may want to think about spending their money elsewhere.

By the way, we started this topic with you being unaware of who Danielle Radcliffe, Harry Potter, and JK Rowling were. I hope you have at least found yourself educated on the series.
Veteran, US Army

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
I'll go out on a limb and guess that the publisher will honour the contract signed with Rowling. This is, at this moment, about the workers. I can't speak for the company, but perhaps they might shuffle the workforce or outsource the job?

Yes. As you so astutely stated,

People in business are vulnerable to losing money based on their decisions and stances. As the goal of a business is to make money, one has to question the wisdom of such decisions and stances... and the people who make and take them.

J.K. Rowling is a very well selling author. So the publisher may well feel it prudent to do as you say. Especially if its contract with her has provisions to deal with situations like this one.

But... they do say that all publicity is good publicity, don't they? So all of this is actually excellent free advertising for her next book, whatever it may be. I would not at all be surprised it later turns out to be just a publicity campaign...

In any case, I believe we are in agreement that since we do accept that the staff of the publishing house is within its rights to deny service to her due to their convictions we must also accept the same when we are subjected to similar action from people with differing convictions. Or be rightly accused of bigotry.

By the way, we started this topic with you being unaware of who Danielle Radcliffe, Harry Potter, and JK Rowling were. I hope you have at least found yourself educated on the series.

Actually, I did know who J. K. Rowling was, and had read the books—although to be honest I found them pretty irritating. It was the actor that I drew a complete blank on. When I read the original post I thought he might be that non-binary trans woman from Scotland or someplace whose insistence that she was female despite dressing male and sporting a beard someone else had complained about earlier. LOL.

Offline F_P_M

  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
dehumanising people isn't a "different opinion" and isn't "free speech". Rowling has been radicalised, there's no other term for it. It's a cult and they're radicalising vulnerable people, indoctrinating them into their hateful nonsense.

I don't believe Hatchett will do much, it took their staff walking out for them to think twice about publishing Woody Allen's memoirs after staff said they didn't want anything to do with him or his work.

I'd love if her book got cancelled, it'd be nice for hate to be rewarded with silence and for people to take a stand against toxic attitudes and using a massive platform to spread misinformation and dangerous untruths but I fear it'd just turn her into a martyr for her revolting cause.

It'd be nice if she could grow up and actually speak to trans people and learn but she won't. She's far too radicalised, too far gone to be reached as far as I am concerned.

and let's not even get into her disgusting ablism implying that autistic people can't consent to transition and claiming we're being "fooled".
It's infantalising and offensive.

Her entire essay is offensive and full of implications that are frankly dangerous, the very things that get us hurt or killed.
it isn't acceptable.

I'm tired of terfs. I really am. I'm tired of them coopting feminism for their mysogynistic, racist, transphobic drivel and i'm tired of them manipulating vulnerable people into being their mouthpieces.

I lump them in with hate preachers and alt righters. Same tactics, same tribalism, same gross disregard for other human beings they deem to be "the wrong SORT" "undesirables" if you prefer.
I think it's disgusting and shouldn't be acceptable in polite society.

But here we are, giving these people huge platforms to continue to recruit and spread their dangerous toxic ideas.

It's just.. eugh.

Rowling's nonsense is nothing new though. Her books are full of transmysogyny and various prejudices (I mean come on, she has a race of slaves who LOVE being slaves, it's icky)
There are authors who write similar stories and are far better people. Rick Riordan for example and the author of the Animorphs series from the 90s who's come out swinging for trans people (they have a trans kid)

Sadly, the reality is that Rowling is big enough and rich enough that even blacklisting her books won't make much difference. Harry Potter means a lot to many people and this all has caused a lot of hurt for fans of the world she created. She doesn't care though. But certainly it means I will not be buying her new book and it makes me seriously question if I want to continue to read the books to my children. Getting through book five which has some pretty unpleasant transphobic subtext going on was difficult, I didn't notice it as a kid but reading it aloud as an adult I was honestly shocked by it. That alone left a sour taste, but coupled with her tweets over the past few years? yeah..

She can stick her attitude up her Ickabog for all i'm concerned. -_-

Offline zirconia

  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
Hi, F_P_M

I see you strongly agree with the publisher's staff.

I trust you are also in agreement with Devlyn and myself that they are within their rights to deny service to her due to their convictions?

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Tags: