>

Could you please elaborate on what you find "bad" about what JK Rowling has said?
For example, this seems very supportive of Trans people... Do you think it is bad to love trans people or march against their discrimination?
I think the biggest thing here is that you are saying that we don't need to boycott her work due to the fact that there are other interpretations of it. 

implying that Rowling's not-so-recent public persona saying a ton of 
wrong things destroys HP or automatically means that we ought to stop 
supporting their work is just as wrong.

I would say it's much worse to do things to support a person that has these views, by, for instance, paying for their media, than it is to alienate their media. Losing a bit of media can be sad but is quickly gotten over. Racism, antisemitism, and anti-trans stuff is not. 

JK Rowling's views can be completely separated from their work 

You can completely separate it from your own subjective standpoint, but with things like this, it's more important to as a society, in no way support people that have these stances. We should do everything we can to make these worldviews as unwelcome as possible. And I wouldn't say this is different whether that person is alive or dead. 

it's very hard to see a world where the impact of "boycotting" her actually matters

The effect, just like many other small choices we make on a day to day basis, is a larger and larger group of people speaking out against people like this. If you are willing to give up media due to how you feel about the creator, which is saying a lot for most people living in first world countries, then it's an idea that's everpresent in your mind, and in the minds of those around you. And that's powerful, in a positive way.

only really affects a small section of the population,

That is a terrible, and apologist view of it. Just because something terrible someone is doing is only effecting a select few people, that doesn't mean it's not wrong, nor does it mean it shouldn't be stopped. If someone had a specific serial killer criteria that only effected 0.0000001% of the population, they're still doing a horrible thing by killing those people, and especially when all you are talking about doing is to NOT consume their media or openly support them, it's really not a large price to pay. No discrimination towards any marginalized group should be tolerated, really ever.

"creator bad work bad" is not a good analysis of art

Sure, terrible people can create amazing things. Probably the most valid point you've had. That doesn't mean that consuming those things is worth supporting terrible people. 

you should not be guilt-tripping people into anything

With something like this, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the people who do the bad thing, are good. The only reason I'd say don't guilt trip people into it, is because that's manipulative, fucked up and, maybe, your judgement isn't perfect. But not because it's somehow acceptable to support a fucked up individual. >


Losing a bit of media can be sad but is quickly gotten over. Racism, antisemitism, and anti-trans stuff is not.

I feel like this is a very joyless view of media. Art is extremely important to everyone. All of the things you mentioned after that are very bad, but I would not say they are more important than having big connections with art. 
Getting over your favorite world is not "something is quickly gotten over".
I also don't feel like consuming these works inherently supports their bad ideas, even if the creator is alive and profiting from it, because there are more things to consider other than this. 

it's more important to as a society, in no way support people that have these stances.

I don't agree. I'd rather have a TERF that does good art, than a TERF who doesn't. 

And I wouldn't say this is different whether that person is alive or dead.

The same goes here. If Rowling was dead, I wouldn't even bother making this thread, because it should be obvious to everyone that consuming HP is okay. It's only how she's the figurehead and how she has benefitted from it that makes it something worth talking about. 

The effect, just like many other small choices we make on a day to day basis, is a larger and larger group of people speaking out against people like this

Yes, I realize this, I'm not saying we should never boycott; I'm saying this specific boycott doesn't make sense. For example, I'd say veganism's urge to not consume meat is justified, even if I don't agree with it, because from their PoV we are making something horrible to animals. But I don't see this boycott as something that has sense, even as someone that is not into HP anymore, and who is very much pro-trans. 

Just because something terrible someone is doing is only effecting a select few people, that doesn't mean it's not wrong, nor does it mean it shouldn't be stopped.

Sure, but that's not what I said. Maybe I didn't express myself correctly: what I meant to say is that, given that Rowling has done a lot of other things other than TERF rhetoric, it's important to keep that in mind when we decide whether she's even worth boycotting in the first place - given that people are taking that she's worth boycotting as a given.
Note that I am not saying that it's not worth boycotting her. I am saying that it's not obvious enough for people to be urging others to do the same in the way it's being done.

That doesn't mean that consuming those things is worth supporting terrible people.

I would not make this prescription. Also, supporting terrible people, and that person being able to spread their bad ideas, are two different things. 

The only reason I'd say don't guilt trip people into it

I also disagree with this. Some issues are worth pressuring others, and trans issues are one of those, but even if boycotting Legacy was the correct move, it's not being done correctly. >


I also don't feel like consuming these works inherently supports their bad ideas, even if the creator is alive and profiting from it, because there are more things to consider other than this.

The creator being alive and profiting is literally supporting them.

I don't agree. I'd rather have a TERF that does good art, than a TERF who doesn't.

What about no TERFs? Why is your binary between a useful/useless bigot rather than bigot/not bigot? >


The creator being alive and profiting is literally supporting them.

Not necessarily. I'd argue that Rowling's TERF influence is not attached anymore to HP. 

What about no TERFs? Why is your binary between a useful/useless bigot rather than bigot/not bigot?

That's not my binary, but I'm taking for granted that TERFs exist, because they do.  Of course if I could press a button and make eveyrone had only good views I'd do it but that's not what we're discussing here. >


I'd argue that Rowling's TERF influence is not attached anymore to HP.

Can you please actually share that argument? >

You mean as in, elaborate on it? >


we need to actually engage with her ideas, interpret her work in a different way

Why is this better than simply not paying her any attention at all? >

Well, you could do that too, but that's not what people asking to boycott her are doing. 
Also, people enjoy her work, so that's one good reason to talk about it. >

What do you think a boycott is if not simply avoiding that persons product/associated brands? >

A boycott is an active attempt to not support something, it is not simply ignoring it. As in, you pressure others to not consume the product. Simply not buying it is not enough. 
I think it's fine to call for boycotts when it makes sense (though I don't have a hard position on this; maybe boycotts never actually make sense) but even if I was sure that boycotts where good practices I don't feel like this one is justified. >

Then there's no need for you to call for a boycott. But can you understand the position of someone who does call for a boycott? When you say nothing good can come of it don't you mean nothing good for you, rather than those who are promoting one? >


But can you understand the position of someone who does call for a boycott?

I understand it and I don't think it's conductive to the results they are looking for. >


3) This is probably an unpopular argument, but in the gran scheme of things, Rowling's views don't actually hurt that many people. Trans issues are important for more than trans people, of course, given that it has ramifications on how we see gender roles, but it only really affects a small section of the population, and disregarding other good things Rowling has done (like a ton of charity work) for something that she has for some reason obsessed on is also not okay. HP is very huge comparatively; it was a very formative work for a lot of people and guilt tripping

Yeah, this really should be an unpopular argument. It may shock you to learn, but I'm not exactly a fan of being a sacrificial lamb for the sake of the "good stuff" you imagine Rowling brings to the world. >

Well, I wouldn't either, but thankfully, I didn't call anyone to be sacrificial lamb. >

Your argument is that trans people aren't a big deal relative to the good she's done. Some of us may die, but that is a sacrifice you are willing to make. >

People die all the time. >

Is this intended to be a meaningful argument? >

Not at all, just wanted to show you how dumb you sound. Clearly it worked >

You wanted to make me sound dumb by creating a non-argument that bears no resemblance to anything I said, except insofar as both comments included the word "die"? You doing okay? >

You said "some of us may die." I said "people die all the time." Both dumb arguments that have zero relevance to the conversation >

So... your argument was dumb in a way that is totally unrelated to the way you imagine my argument to be dumb? Truly bizarre. Maybe work on whatever the hell it is you're going for here. I have faith you'll do better next time. >

Better yet, lets see those sources of trans people dying specifically because of JKR. >

It keeps people focus on trans issues facing the community. >

You can do that without calling for a boycott, and it has the upside of not asking people to let go of something that is very personal to them. >

you seems to be more aware of it, so it is working. >

No, it did not. I have been aware of Rowling's views from the start, and I have never liked them. This boycott just makes me not want to associate with trans activists. >

Don't associate. Don't play the game. Really doesnt matter one way or another to any of the parties involved. >

Well, I won't do either, but I do think that what we say and the way we act is very important, which is why I came here to discuss that.
But I guess if you don't think that, we don't have anything to discuss. >

Let me guess, you are really excited for the game and want to play it without people making you feel bad about it? 
Sure you can interpret HP in a way where all the questionable-to-bad stuff is gone but that seems like an even worse way to interpret media than 'creator bad work bad' >

No, I am not, I have not engaged meaningfully with HP in like 10 years.
I'm replying as courtesy but I will not engage anymore, have a good day. >

That is certainly one way to not discuss your views. >

Indeed. >

I thought you weren't going to engage anymore? >

With regard to 1) 
​
She spends her power and influence affecting politics. She has spent a fortune pushing her trans-exclusionary agenda. Her politics are deeply rooted, and I dont think we have any capacity or obligation to try to change them. 
​
With regard to 2)
​
She has infinite money (essentially) so boycotting her works is not about stopping her having money: it is about affecting her legacy.  If she only had money, that would be one thing. But her money buys her influence, and makes her a powerful person in a many circumstances.  
​
Her writing is another source of power. She is a widely praised and highly successful children's author. But her views are incompatible with how I want my society to be. To continue to feed into her prestige, and limiting other peoples' exposure to her work, her power can be limited. Even this very post is an example of how her power can be affected: as people publicise and protest, knowledge about her opinions spreads, and she becomes associated with being transphobic rather than just a successful author. 
​
With regard to 3)
​
That is a terrible argument. How many people would she have to directly harm in order for it to be worth boycotting her books? Should we accept other authors, artists who have disagreeable views? How disagreeable should they be before we say enough is enough? 
​
with regard to 4)
​
Bring on the critical analysis of art. If my kid wants to analyse Harry Potter, they can go to the library and get the books. But this is not about appraisal of her as an artist. It is about increase the power she has in the world.
​
with regard to 5)
​
I disagree entirely. People should be shamed when they have views that are incompatible with other people exercising their bodily autonomy. People who deny the rights of others to exist freely and safely should be publicly shamed and made to defend their views. They should not be tacitly supported by society. 
​
Rowling has independently funded a trans-exclusionary rape crisis centre in Edinburgh based on her prejudicial views of transwomen. She has done this to attempt to avoid legislation that would require transwomen to be treated as women. Now imagine the same service, but direct the prejudice toward another marginalised group. Does that feel right? >


People should be shamed when they have views that are incompatible with other people exercising their bodily autonomy.

In what way are any specific views of Rowling "incompatible with other people exercising their bodily autonomy?"

People who deny the rights of others to exist freely and safely should be publicly shamed and made to defend their views.

When has Rowling denied the rights of others to exist freely and safely? >

I can't see that this argument is in good faith. But just in case, she has been in active opposition to legislation in Scotland to allow self-declaration of gender. 
Without this, trans-people are obliged to seek a medical diagnosis, which can be challenging as there are long waits for dysphoria diagnoses as there are insufficient clinics to facilitate these diagnoses. >


I can't see that this argument is in good faith. 

I mean I asked two questions it's not an arguement. 

But just in case, she has been in active opposition to legislation in Scotland to allow self-declaration of gender.

So how is that "incompatible with other people exercising their bodily autonomy" or denies the rights of others to exist freely and safely? 

Without this, trans-people are obliged to seek a medical diagnosis, which can be challenging as there are long waits for dysphoria diagnoses as there are insufficient clinics to facilitate these diagnoses.

So having to interact with the NHS in order to legally change one's gender is some sort of violation of rights or a threat to bodily autonomy? 
I'm just unclear as to which rights are being violated here? >

Just asking questions. Sure. The way one asks a question, and the questions they ask are an argument. By calling to question the idea that she has lobbied to limit people's rights, it moves the discussion to a place where I have to specifically go through examples where I defend that position. But that was a belief I stated I held. You can look through JK Rowling's opinions and make a decision for yourself: they are not the issue at the core of the OPs post.
So either you want me to inform you of the facts of what she has said(which you can do on your own), or you want me to justify my belief (because that belief is not immediately reasonable based on an understanding of her opinions).  
I am not going to go into a complete repudiation of JK Rowling's politics here. 
Her opposition to the gender recognition bill is one example of her direct involvement in politics which will have a direct effect on people. That effect is to restrict people's ability to define their gender. That is a restriction of their bodily autonomy. 
If there was easy access to appropriate clinics then the obligation for a medical diagnosis may not be unfair. As it stands, access to limited, in particular for young people. It is uneven depending on region, and is universally underfunded. Private care is an option that is only open to some, and creates a system where well-off trans-people can access care and those who are poor can't.   So yes: obliging a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is a substantive, discriminatory, limitation to people's ability to have their appropriate gender recognised. >


Just asking questions. Sure. The way one asks a question, and the questions they ask are an argument. 

An argument requires an affirmative belief being put forward. 

By calling to question the idea that she has lobbied to limit people's rights, it moves the discussion to a place where I have to specifically go through examples where I defend that position. But that was a belief I stated I held. 

But you made the claim. So why not provide evidence? 

Her opposition to the gender recognition bill is one example of her direct involvement in politics which will have a direct effect on people. That effect is to restrict people's ability to define their gender. That is a restriction of their bodily autonomy.

How is that a restriction on people's ability to define their gender? How is it a restriction on bodily autonomy? 

If there was easy access to appropriate clinics then the obligation for a medical diagnosis may not be unfair. 

Why would it be unfair under any circumstances? 

So yes: obliging a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is a substantive, discriminatory, limitation to people's ability to have their appropriate gender recognised.

Why does this represent a limitation on someone's ability to have their appropriate gender recognized? Can't they just tell people they're whatever gender they want? >

Okay but what if the goal of saying "boycott HP legacy" is neither to actually harm Rowling financially, nor to critique the art of HP legacy or HP in general - it is rather just to draw attention to the fact that Rowling's views suck. Because it's just good propaganda, right? As you pointed out, it's a property that is very important to a lot of people and widely popular, so already by just saying "no thanks" to it one is making a political statement that will resonate with a lot of people. It doesn't really matter whether or not people actually boycott the product and it fails financially, the point is a demonstration of political will against Rowling's anti-trans agenda. >


so already by just saying "no thanks" to it one is making a political statement that will resonate with a lot of people.

I promise you this is not resonating with most people. It's sad, but most people don't actually care about trans people.

the point is a demonstration of political will against Rowling's anti-trans agenda.

I could see a point in doing this, but I actually do not see this is what people are doing. You could say "I find this specific thing so deplorable that I don't even want to give her one cent", but rather, you are seeing people actually call others transphobic or "not caring enough about trans issues" over buying the game. >

So what is your point here exactly, you think that anti-transphobic propaganda is ineffective for the simple fact that most people don't care about trans people, so therefore, the anti-transphobic crowd should just give up. Like is the point literally just that you think they've lost, so they should just shut up about it >

No, I think the attention that the game is getting is not conductive to actually fighting trans issues. Rowling can make millions of dollars off this game, this will NOT heighten her influence against trans people.
She is already a multi-millionaire who could live off from investments and never earn a dime again through royalties, so boycotting doesn't really hurt her financially. Her TERF rhetoric is also only related to the HP fandom tangentially, as in, it got to prominence because of her fame, but it's not directly feeding off from it - even if HP dies, the TERFism she is bolstering will not back down one bit.
So instead of forcing people into not enjoying HP anymore I think it's better to analyze her work and analyze her views, because her finances and influence from the wrong things she is spouting are not hurt by us stopping to consume HP.
tl;dr too much cost for literally zero benefit. >

But even if you think it's ineffective propaganda to say "boycott it," that's just an argument that it's ineffective, it's not a argument that it is bad to say it. So what's the issue in saying it? Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, and you can still enjoy the game guilt-free all you want. 
Moreover, you might disagree that any harm to trans people will be prevented by anybody saying that anybody else is transphobic for enjoying HP, but surely, from the perspective of the person saying that, the harm done by calling somebody a mean name for enjoying a thing is much, much less than the harm that could be prevented by countering the terf agenda. You know, like I don't think that this hypothetical overzealous trans rights activist would find your argument very compelling, since from their perspective, they're trying to save lives, and you're just trying to enjoy a thing without having to hear about how the thing might be problematic; a thing which you could have done anyway if you just ignored them. >


But even if you think it's ineffective propaganda to say "boycott it," that's just an argument that it's ineffective, it's not a argument that it is bad to say it.

I think it's both ineffective and bad to say it. For example, I think vegans are justified into pressuring others not to eat meat, but they very often don't do it correctly. In the case of the Legacy boycott, it's unjustified, but even if it was, it's not being done correctly.

So what's the issue in saying it?

So it's fine to say whatever and pressure others just because others can ignore you? 

much less than the harm that could be prevented by countering the terf agenda.

I don't agree that this even counters the terf agenda, but even if it did, I would not think that I could just then say anything I wanted just because my cause is just.

you're just trying to enjoy a thing without having to hear about how the thing might be problematic;

If people are unwilling to see how what they consume can have problematic elements, that should be called out, but that is not what is happening with Legacy. People are literally just calling people transphobes for buying the game.
TL;DR if your whole point is "what do you care what I say? You can just ignore me" I would promptly start following your advice. >

I don't think her rhetoric is "bad". >

Her TERFposting is awful but this thread is not about that, so unless you have another point to make I'm not sure we have an on-topic discussion here. >

I did write the thread so I do quite directly have a say on what's on-topic. If you want to discuss whether her rhetoric is bad or not you can make a different thread. >

there is no circumstance on this planet where I report to you. >

You don't, no, it's just a suggestion incase you do want to tak about that.