Transphobic Creator J.K. Rowling ‘Not Involved’ in New Harry Potter Game

Transphobic Creator J.K. Rowling ‘Not Involved’ in New Harry Potter Game
Many developers worked hard on this game and it's sad that what should be a celebration of that work on beloved franchise is marred because its creator is a transphobe. (Screenshot: Portkey Games)

Warner Brothers, publisher of the upcoming open-world Harry Potter game Hogwarts Legacy, released an FAQ on the game’s official Discord yesterday. In addition to answering questions about the game’s development and platforms, the FAQ asserts that Rowling, who’s recently drawn criticism for transphobic statements, has no involvement in the game.

Teased in yesterday’s PS5 event, Hogwarts Legacy is an action role-playing game set at Hogwarts 100 years before the events of the Harry Potter series. Reaction to the game was mixed, with many fans mourning the existence of a game that was much desired but still irrevocably tied to Rowling, who has on numerous occasions made statements on social media that discriminate against trans women or support trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) figures. Rowling’s statements have drawn condemnation from fans, as well as Harry Potter film actors Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Eddie Redymane.

Warner Brothers’ FAQ reads that “J.K. Rowling was not involved in the creation of the game, however, her extraordinary body of writing is the foundation of all projects in the Wizarding World. This is not a new story from J.K. Rowling.” (An FAQ on Warner Brothers’ support site alters this wording to “not directly involved,” though both have identical explanations of the scope of Rowling’s participation.)

Choosing to support this game, no matter a stated reason, supports Rowling.  (Screenshot: Portkey Games) Choosing to support this game, no matter a stated reason, supports Rowling. (Screenshot: Portkey Games)

A spokesperson for Warner Brothers declined to comment further when asked by Kotaku whether Rowling would receive royalties for Hogwarts Legacy. When asked whether the studio had any comment on Rowling’s beliefs, the company referred Kotaku to a statement Warner Brothers. released in June to Variety.

“The events in the last several weeks have firmed our resolve as a company to confront difficult societal issues,” the Variety statement reads. “Warner Bros.’ position on inclusiveness is well established, and fostering a diverse and inclusive culture has never been more important to our company and to our audiences around the world. We deeply value the work of our storytellers who give so much of themselves in sharing their creations with us all. We recognise our responsibility to foster empathy and advocate understanding of all communities and all people, particularly those we work with and those we reach through our content.”

Harry Potter mobile game Hogwarts Mystery has a similar FAQ point regarding Rowling’s involvement in the game, which reads, “J.K. Rowling was not involved in the creation of the game. J.K. Rowling is supportive of Portkey Games, which are authentic to the Wizarding World, and has entrusted the design and creation of the games to WB Games and the developers involved.”

On Twitter, many current and former Harry Potter fans expressed a range of emotions and opinions about Hogwarts Legacy and its connection to Rowling. Some fans said they are unwilling to purchase a game that may support Rowling, while others stated that they’d be willing to purchase the game to support its developers. Noting Rowling’s lack of creative input into Hogwarts Legacy may be an attempt to distance it from its transphobic creator while also appealing to conflicted fans.

Comments

  • This kind of ostracization of people with different views is exactly why knobheads like Trump exist.

    A huge portion of the population agree with her to varying extents. Myself included. Defining someone who’s brought so much happiness to the world simply as a ‘transphobic creator’ and bullying any person or organisation who won’t publically bury her is why people vote for nutters when they get into a private ballot box.

    I think most people in our society fall into two clear genders and i’m fine with our society being structured in a way that caters to the overwhelming majority. In a room of sensible adults I’m happy to admit that I don’t think a person with male anatomy who thinks he’s a woman is REALLY a woman. I wouldn’t sleep with that person. I don’t act confused when by some miracle it turns out he can still perform the same biological functions as his actual gender allows.

    That doesn’t mean I support being rude to people if they want to be recognised however they want and it’s not harming anyone. I also don’t attack people who think differently to me. I feel genuinely bad for trans people who are harmed by over the top “advocates” who are so obnoxious it creates resentment against their community.

    • It’s hard not to bring up Rowling’s transphobia – and make no mistake, she had made transphobic statements and incited transphobia on numerous occasions – when the same week a new product that she is going to profit from is announced it’s also revealed she’s writing a murder mystery where the murderer is a man that dresses as a woman to get close to his victims, which is a paranoid belief people have about trans women “invading” female spaces.

      The fact that her books have brought so much happiness to people is what makes this a bitter pill for fans of the franchise, especially when a key message of those books is love triumphing over hate and intolerance.

      • “the murderer is a man that dresses as a woman to get close to his victims”

        Not the murderer; one of several suspects.

        “a bitter pill for fans of the franchise”

        Some fans. I suspect most fans don’t give a shit.

        • I suspect more fans would give a shit, if they knew. I’m involved in a number of online communities across a range of topics from books to tattoos and I see complaints from a lot of people who are honestly devastated by the fact that they’ve put so much emotional energy, time and money into supporting Rowling. Obviously no one is going to tell someone with a Harry Potter themed tattoo not to love it, there is a lot of support for separating the art from the artist, at least insofar as the damage is done. But can you continue to support them? Does it matter enough to vote with my wallet on this issue? Will anyone be hurt by this? Those are for individuals to decide for themselves. I’m not advocating for a boycott of the game or anything, people can make up their own minds on that. But I want people to be aware that when someone as prominent as Rowling speaks out in ways that are hurtful to the trans community it isn’t just one person’s opinion, it’s a global broadcast that stokes the embers and makes life harder for an extremely marginalised group. With that in mind it’s completely disingenuous to then say that the people speaking up against those comments are the bad guys and the ones responsible for driving people to hold more extreme views.

    • Bang on comment.

      I can’t speak on the J.K. situation because I just don’t care enough to find out exactly what the woman said, but IF she merely expressed her opinion being that there are only two genders and they’re not interchangeable without personally attacking anyone, then I fully support her.

      Personally, I don’t quite agree with you, but do in a sense. I have not experienced any uncertainty in what gender I am/should be so I can’t personally relate to anybody that has, but who the hell am I to say nobody else experiences that? In the same way, I don’t understand depression but I know that it’s most certainly a thing so I will never doubt anybody that has it.

      To your point though, if one is merely expressing an opinion like yourself without attacking anybody on a personal level, then you should not be ostracised and ridiculed.

      • “To your point though, if one is merely expressing an opinion like yourself without attacking anybody on a personal level, then you should not be ostracised and ridiculed.”

        But what if that opinion that is expressed is an ostracizing and ridiculing one?

        • Who decides what is ostracising and ridiculing though?

          We’ve already seen such divisiveness from different groups towards different groups.

          Example: You can criticise men, but criticise women and that’s “ostracising and ridiculing”.

          Example: You can paint broad strokes and criticise white people as a whole, but do it to any other group and it’s “ostracising and ridiculing”.

          Example: You can criticise the entire religion of Christianity, but criticise Islam and it’s “ostracising and ridiculing”

          Now sure, I know you are going to say something along the lines of “but there’s a power imbalance”.

          But even in instances where those balances of powers are reversed, you still can’t criticise those groups. Take for example Islam (and I use this as it’s very easy): You have people in western countries flying banners such as “gays for ” where, in the country they are showing support for, they would be publicly executed, because Islam is very anti-homosexual.

          And this extends to things that are supported by the groups that are in power. For instance, the #freePalestine people don’t care that Syria currently occupy part of the territory that was once called Palestine. Those people did not care when Jordan and Egypt occupied The West Bank or Gaza Strip, yet as soon as Israel occupied them, they all of a sudden care about the Palestinians. Slight tangent but, interesting to note that there is no #freeChaldea or #freeAssyria or #freePersia, considering those people still exist, yet have no country to call their own.. But people won’t criticise the countries occupying those lands, because Muslim countries occupy those lands, not western backed countries.

          Now, I went on a tangent somewhat, but point stands. Who decides what language “ostracises and ridicules” people, and which groups does that apply to? But then, if and when the people who decide such things (homosexuals, POC, women, etc) have the “pendulum of power” swing all the way to their side, will they keep those same rules and restrictions?

          Or will they change it again, to allow themselves to be open to criticism, and protect the groups that aren’t in power anymore (straights, whites, men, etc), from those opinions that they have previously said was ok to have?

    • The fault here seems to be that you want live and let live, openness, etc but you’re supporting someone who is very much about the ostracisation of people with different views because those views have a physical component. If this only existed in the hypothetical space it does for you and I then I would agree, views are views and I don’t need everyone’s views to match my own, but it doesn’t. Trans people are people who have feelings and her basically trolling them and promoting the bullying of them on Twitter is a very shitty thing to do.

      People like Trump thrive because quiet bigotry thrives among people like us. We don’t call out bigotry unless it has a directly observable impact because we don’t like conflict. Racist family member? We don’t actually have to deal with it so we just don’t say anything. Then when someone actually does we’re like ‘why did you do that? You knew it’d lead to a fight. Why are you starting fights’? We end up thinking people are flying off the handle and need to calm down when really JK is the one antagonising people.
      She said some shit that wasn’t cool, people called her out on it, it could have ended there. Instead she fanned the flames and tried to frame herself as the victim (damn cancel culture… giving her less love than she feels she feels entitled to and yet another book deal after she’s consistently shit the bed).
      It sucks that you feel attacked because your views align with what you seem to think hers are but that’s not what’s happening here. You’re not being attacked and don’t let people like JK convince you that her billionaire ass getting called out for starting a fight is an attack on you. That’s how people like Trump win.

      • Case in point I just wrote a big long comment specifically avoiding even challenging your specific views because you’re generally alright. I avoided conflict even though you said some stuff that trans members of the community will read and think ‘yep, guess I’m not actually welcome here even though my junk is totally irrelevant’. I really don’t want (almost) anyone feeling like they’re not welcome here. This place is so much better when the community is big. Yet I’m willing to leave a statement that alienates people relatively uncontested.

        Again, not trying to change your mind, but just think about that. Think about how quickly you’d get pissed if I was doing that in a situation that’s more real. Like you’re dealing with something and your boss is intentionally making it worse, and I waltz in all like ‘well, two sides to every story’. You’d probably tell me to fuck off and keep my opinions to myself and that would be fair.

    • “I don’t act confused when by some miracle it turns out he can still perform the same biological functions as his actual gender allows.”

      Sex =/= Gender. She may have a penis, she may have been assigned male at birth and her sex may still be technically male (or intersex, or indeterminate – like gender sex isn’t a binary either), but her gender is female. Gender is a set of of expressions, behaviours and facets of a person’s identity while sex is biology.

      Say someone has what appears to everyone to be a regular vagina, has always been treated as a woman, feels she is a woman, and has always been comfortable as a woman until after she doesn’t get her period for years after her peers do and has a few tests done discovers her sex is technically male. This isn’t some hypothetical, it happened and things like it do happen more often than you might think. I think to make this person change every aspect of how they think of themselves to conform to their sex is clearly a terrible thing to do to someone. Likewise if someone feels they are a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth to deny the reality of their gender is equally appalling.

      I do understand the discomfort with the dissolution of what seemed to be firm ideas and notions that seemed to be so fundamental that they would never even be questioned. There was a time when I probably felt a very similar discomfort about a lot of the things I now understand and believe, but I think the important thing is while no-one is being harmed by trans people beyond the same statistical average that cis people are harming people, trans people are being harmed, and killed, at rates far higher than their cis counterparts.

      Part of why people react so strongly to Rowling is not the extremity of her beliefs, though of course to any trans people and their allies they are very much extreme – it’s more to do with the amount of damage she does when she does things like perpetuate the myth that trans women are just dangerous men trying invade women’s spaces. Trans women are literally murdered because of myths and phobias like these and while I assume Rowling doesn’t want that to happen, she isn’t paying any attention to the people telling her it is happening and she might make things worse.

      There is a lot in your comment I disagree with, but I don’t think any of it is motivated by hate or spite, and I hope this comment isn’t taken as hate I’m directing at you, I just think it’s an experience thing. I’ve met and talked to trans people, I’ve listened to and watched stories from trans people and I learned a lot as a result – if you’re interested in why a lot of trans people are so aggressive towards people like Rowling I’d recommend this video from Contrapoints https://youtu.be/1pTPuoGjQsI that unpacks how damaging the ‘gender critical’ or TERF crowd can be. She’s not perfect (no-one is), but this is an easy to understand breakdown of how hateful this stuff can often be.

  • The best way to solve a problem where one person is prejudiced toward others is to vilify and exclude them. That will sure foster in them a sense of appreciation for the other group and educate them about why their actions are wrong. /s

    I get people hating the sinner. It’s easy to have a focal point that is a physical embodiment of what you hate. But the world of Harry Potter as far as I know is not a transphobic artistic comment and the game would certainly not be made by J.K. Rowling only. Maybe, instead of fostering an attitude of exclusion and perpetuating the feelings of resentment, we should be leading by example and fostering a sense of inclusion and acceptance in the hopes it would encourage them to do the same.

    Now, does anyone want to ride this incredibly tall horse?

      • Here’s the difference. The people who advocate for not threatening the lives of a certain group of people, are, themselves advocating the threatening of lives of another group of people.

        It’s called hypocrisy.

        JK, not once advocated for violence against trans people, nor has she insinuated that violence should be made against trans people.

        But it’s nice to know that *you* are ok with threatening people with violence and death.. as long as those people are ones that you disagree with.

        Makes you no different and no better.

        • It’s hypocritical and unacceptable. …But it’s not as hypocritical as you suggest, and not even close to equivalent.

          Censure of people for their actions is a hugely different thing from censure of people for their existence. It’s what underpins the poorly-named ‘paradox of tolerance’.

          • I have nothing wrong with censuring of people.

            But death threats and wish for harm/violence are not censure.

            Don’t confuse the two

        • I think the actual difference is a death threat aimed at her is someone being like ‘Hermione is white and always has been! Go die in a fire’ and a death threat aimed at the trans community is ‘I’m going to stop beating you before you die, but I might not next time’. It’s sort of why the trans community doesn’t really embrace the idea of death threats.

          Ever notice how you only seem to get outraged about hypocrisy when it’s the side you don’t agree with? Like you’re always banging on about it but only when it comes from the side that you think is left wing. Odd that.

          • You might disagree in totality, personally I’m not convinced but anything is possible, however you only seem to care when it’s a group you disagree with. When it validates you.

            As for those tweets nobody supports them. They’re a fringe group that’s extremely small compared to the one that comes out any time she says anything remotely progressive (or lets face it, anyone admitting their trans on Twitter gets). They shouldn’t happen but they’re also just tweets compared to actual violence and abuse that the trans community faces at an absurdly higher rate than others. Neither is good but it’s outright delusional to frame it as the trans community supports someone breaking into her mansion and killing her.

          • “Ever notice how you only seem to get outraged about hypocrisy when it’s the side you don’t agree with? ”
            HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
            Oh, Youre Serious?
            Let me laugh even harder.

          • You see me on one site… a decidedly left leaning one, and then you see me respond to someone and you think you know my every thought and feeling. Interesting… In a world where you actively disagree in a very fundamental binary, you seem to only think in a binary.

            “As for those tweets, nobody supports them”. But people do support them. In fact, point to 3 trans people who have spoken out against those death threats to JK. What is it that people say these days? “silence is violence” Unless you actively speak out against something, you support it. Isn’t that what all these large, vocal activist groups are saying these days.

            So no, until people from the trans community have come out and said on a public forum, that they denounce those threats to JK, then, by the rules of said communities and groups, they support them.

            “they are just tweets” cool, so were JK’s *shrug*.

          • I don’t see you everywhere so I’m going to judge you based on how you act here. If I was going to have any impact on your life outside of here that might be unfair but I’m not so I work with what you put out into this community… which is pretty much just finding excuses to have a sook about ‘the left’ even though your issues with the left don’t seem to actually impact your life in any meaningful way.

            Also I shouldn’t have let it slide earlier but ‘love and inclusivity’ is the mission statement you assigned so you can call them hypocrites the second you find a way to twist a single statement to not be 100% dedicated to love and inclusivity. You didn’t get it from a declaration by the Queen of Trans. You didn’t get it from the official trans press release. You chose one of many vague ideas that people have in common, massively dumbed it down to an impossible absolute and played it up as the entire belief structure of an extremely diverse group of people. Specifically because the second someone raised their voice you could yell ‘yelling isn’t love and inclusion! Hypocrite!’.

          • Sure thing bucko.

            Don’t have to find excuses when they are being televised and publicised for everyone to see.

            Example: Black Lives Matter. BLM doesn’t care about any black life that can’t be weaponised or politicised. Case in point, the 7 yr old black girl shot and killed by a “peaceful BLM protestor”. Literally the ONLY people who didn’t care about her death, was the group that labels themselves BLM.

            Second example: All your responses. Not once have you said anything that can even be implied as you even thinking that threatening JK with death threats is not on. The closest you got was hand-waving it away as “just tweets”. So tell me, why are threats of death and violence to JK “just tweets”, but JK’s tweets aren’t “just tweets”.

            Here’s the fact of the matter. JK not *once* wished harm or death upon any person within the trans community, so much so, you can’t even misconstrue anything she has said to be a call to action to such things. The response on the other hand… well… that’s been rather direct.

            Unless of course, you are one of the weirdo’s that believe words are violence… in which case, you are quite clear in your stance that words are only violence, when people you disagree with, use them.

  • Gotta say i’m getting a little tired of this site inserting the transphobe thing into every article remotely to do with harry potter or rowling

      • constantly vilifying?

        is she really though? She’s said like 4 or 5 things, all of them framed ‘with love’ towards Trans-people

        She just has a different opinion that is outdated, she’s not Satan.

        • Her comments being framed “with love” would be like someone winding up a speech about white supremacy “with love” to the POC community or a homophobe telling gay people they’re going to hell but he’s only saying so “with love” because he wants them to go to heaven.
          She makes comments that call into question the gender identity of trans people, their validity in society, and accuses specifically trans women of stealing experiences from whom she deems to be real women or as she phrased it “people who menstruate”. She thinks gender reassignment surgery is doled out without reasoned consideration and that the medical community is conspiring to steal gender identity from children. Her tone is mocking and cruel with a veneer of lip service to compassion, while she makes no effort to consider the extent to which trans people have suffered discrimination, oppression and violence in society, because it’s not relevant to her views.
          The latest, what I would almost consider the coup de grace, is writing a book where a male suspected of being a serial killer dresses as a woman to stalk his female victims, a classic hallmark of the old trans panic “bathroom” debate that was inevitably going to stir up controversy. She knows what she’s doing. You don’t need to be a writer to understand subtext.

  • The headline is a little on the nose don’t you think?
    Totally fair to go into detail on the controversy surrounding her, and why that’s applicable to the actual topic of the article. But essentially slandering someone in your headline just seems unprofessional.

    Other media headlines seem to be taking the professional approach at least.
    “J.K. Rowling ‘not directly involved’ in creation of Hogwarts Legacy game, Warner Bros. says”

    • There’s a specific reason why Warner Bros is distancing themselves from Rowling though. It’d be a bit weird not to mention it.

  • Unless the Harry Potter books / films / games themselves are transphobic (I haven’t read / watched / played them so I can’t say for sure either way), I don’t really see how the creator’s views are relevant, regardless of whether she’s directly involved in the creation of this game or not. Separate the art from the artist – it’s quite possible to appreciate one even if you don’t like the other.

    Ultimately, all of these things are collaborative – well, not so much the books, but certainly films and games. There are hundreds of people involved in making a game or a film – if you went trawling through all of them then you’d almost certainly find that some of the people involved in making ALL of your favourite games / films have political / social views that are different from your own, and quite possibly outright offensive to you. The end result will be that you’ll probably never be able to enjoy another piece of media for the rest of your life unless you’re able to separate it from the views of at least some of the people who made it.

  • Can anyone please spare a thought of all the developers who put their blood, sweat and tears into making this new game? Wherever you sit on the issue, JKR’s comments haven’t helped the chances of success for the game. No doubt the devs will be feeling disheartened.

    • JKR’s a fucking write-off. I read her foul essay of self-defence, which highlighted a staggeringly arrogant lack of self-awareness by descending further into bigotry while attempting to claim the opposite. I wish I hadn’t read it, as it’s definitely locked her in as utterly unrepentant and ignorant. She’s doubled, tripled down so hard I can’t conceive of her getting a grip on reality ever again. She’s molded her self-image into that of a martyr, fighting a noble crusade. It’s utterly fucked.

      …But I’m also buying this game. You’re 100% right that those devs have got to be feeling shattered. Especially any trans women in the team.

      The ‘wizarding world’ isn’t only hers any more. She spawned it, laid the foundations for the world, but many of the new stories being crafted IN that world? Those belong to others, now. Paid in full. Trick’s going to be if you can stomach that she gets a cheque (and implicit validation) out of it.

      • “Cant conceive her getting a grip on reality again”
        While we are on a topic of people believing they are the opposite sex/gender (and often mutilating their bodies to make it “right”).
        Top laugh my dude.
        Shes ‘totally’ the one out of touch with reality.

        Now i will say, i dont dislike or have any bad feelings against actual trans people for that reason. Ignoring this part of their life they are just like everyone else, can be nice, can be mean, smart, dumb etc etc, so i like/not based on personality like for everyone else i meet. This is just another part of their private life that i dont care about if im honest.
        But the thing is, it isn’t just staying as that, women(men) competing in womens sports, women(men) in womens homeless shelters, laws that have changed/are pushing to be changed that generally affect women, to include women(men) .
        Shit like that is what very understandably gets people fed up with these movements. Its all clearly fucking stupid but if you call it out, the hate mob (that is supposed to the understanding and loving side according to them) will destroy you.

        They aren’t and never will be what they believe/hope they are. Thats not a reason to treat them poorly, but its also not a reason for the whole world to just ignore the sheer stupidity of so much that has come from it.

        • I’m always stunned that people will argue that trans people make up some tiny fragment of the population (e.g.: 0.001% as cited in another comment on this post) but people act as though being inclusive towards them in some major ordeal that will lead to the upheaval of society.

          This is kind of like complaining about seeing ramps everywhere because 1% of the population need wheelchairs. I don’t understand why those lazy bums don’t just get up and walk?!

          • In regards to your second paragraph. You have made a poor analogy due to a (not purposeful) oversight

            No-one has an issue with ramps for wheelchair people. The issue would arise if all stairs were turned into ramps to accommodate wheelchair (and other mobility impaired) people and told everyone to shut up and accept it. They have not forced the removal of stairs, but they’ve adopted a “stair-adjacent” alternative to suit these people.

            Take, for instance, weight lifting as a sport. Trans women wish to be included in the female side of the sport, even though, due to their genetic make-up, they would have gained an unfair advantage in terms of muscle gain and strength training, due to their elevated levels of testosterone in their body (to put that into perspective, Cisgender men typically have testosterone levels of 7.7 to 29.4 nano moles per liter, while premenopausal cis women are generally 1.7 nmol/L or less. The IOC allows trans women to compete in women’s events if their testosterone level as been under 10 nml/L for over 12 months.)

            In the sport of weightlifting (outside of the olympics), not all (cis) men are allowed to compete with other men, due to their higher levels of certain hormones (because of the use of drugs to increase such things), so they are placed into another category entirely… because they will, 9/10 times outperform even the best “natural” weightlifters because of that. Would it be fair to allow those men to compete with the “natural” (and please, I’m using this term to differentiate the drug-using and non drug-using cis-men) athletes? No, it wouldn’t.

          • I think my analogy is closer, frankly. The impact of letting one in ten thousand people live the way that best suits them will have a marginal impact on cisgendered people at best, the particular brand of phobia spread by Rowling is the notion that men will pose as transgendered women to invade women’s spaces or otherwise take important resources away from women. I don’t deny this is reasonable to consider but once you have considered it you have to concede the effects are extremely limited and the fearmongering in connection with it is unwarranted.

            Your sporting analogy is irrelevant to the conversation around acceptance of trans people and the fight against transphobia as a whole and speaks to a strictly to a very specific biological issue. I don’t have a strong opinion on that but will concede that someone who has lived as a male and has developed male musculature should most likely not compete with those of female biology, but I consider the argument around this to be completely compartmentalised from the broader social issues affecting the transgendered community including public vilification by multi billionaire authors.

          • “I don’t have a strong opinion on that but will concede that someone who has lived as a male and has developed male musculature should most likely not compete with those of female biology”

            Literally what JK was talking about, and now you’ve shown yourself to be transphobic.

            See how easy it is.

            You either fully accept that there is no difference between a trans-woman and cis-woman, (and trans-man and cis-man) and discussing biological differences is inherently transphobic (because gender is strictly a social construct with no biological component or input), or you are transphobic.

            Nuance doesn’t exist. It’s all or none.

          • That’s honestly the saddest attempt at a “gotcha” I’ve ever seen. I specifically compartmentalised those issues from one another and you deliberately ignored most of what I said to focus on the one part that you think sustained your argument. Of course you’re wrong: the thing I conceded is not the same as what Rowling has been saying. And you close out by saying there’s no nuance, that this is all or noting.
            *chef’s kiss*
            A masterful summary of your wilful ignorance. Honestly, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

          • “I think my analogy is closer, frankly.”

            I disagree wholeheartedly. Mobility-impaired people live adjacent to those that aren’t, and have been accommodated for and things added to accommodate their very specific needs. They aren’t yelling and screaming, telling those that aren’t mobility-impaired that they need to give up their stairs in order to accommodate ramps and lifts, because stairs are inherently ableist.

            We understand that mobility-impaired people are people and they deserve respect, etc, but we also know that their condition (be it from birth or otherwise) is not a natural thing, but we accommodate their specific needs, we don’t pretend that they aren’t different.

          • “I specifically compartmentalised those issues from one another”

            Lol… go tell a trans-woman that she shouldn’t be able to compete in women’s sports, give her the reason why, and then tell her “I specifically compartmentalised those issues from one another”.

            When you do that, tell me what she says to you.

          • Really? We haven’t given up bathroom space to accomodate the differently angled? We haven’t had to have steps replaced by ramps where there isn’t enough room to accommodate them both? You’ve never seen those primo parking spaces near the entrance to a shopping centre you can’t park in without a special permit? You wanna think about that for a minute and try again?
            Disabled people are not as a group out there saying we have to remove stairs because they’re inherently ableist, but ignoring the effects of accommodating disabled people in favour of your argument we can’t do it for trans people as well is woefully inaccurate.

            I won’t even address your other post since it continues to be an irrelevant strawman. We aren’t talking about biological eligibility in competitive sports, we’re talking about broad social acceptance and not openly vilifying people for who they are.

          • Pretty sure we have very specific, purpose built toilets for them. Reserved only for them.

            We have very specific purpose built parking spaces for them. Reserved only for them.

            We have very specifically not replaced stairs for ramps (they would be VERY dangerous ramps, you know… due to the gradient at which a ramp must de/incline for it to be safe, which is significantly less than that of stairs.) You may be thinking of sets of stairs that have ramps built into them…. you’ll find that those stairs were built specifically to allow the use of ramps with them.

            If it’s purpose built, you’re not taking away, you are adding. Not a hard concept.

            Correct, we have accommodated for the needs of disabled people, by building and adding.

            Trans community don’t want specific toilets/changerooms, they want to use the same as cis people. For example. Difference.

            “I won’t even address your other post since it continues to be an irrelevant strawman.”
            In other words: I’m not going to ask a transwoman if it’s transphobic to say that she shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports.

            “we’re talking about broad social acceptance and not openly vilifying people for who they are.”
            “will concede that someone who has lived as a male and has developed male musculature should most likely not compete with those of female biology”

            Read those very carefully… Because you’ve just openly vilified and marginalised transwomen… again…

            You can call it a “strawman” all you want, but you’d be wrong. And you’re transphobic

          • Nah. Clearly you’ve got no response to my actual arguments so you’re making some up for me. Classic strawmanning. But thank you for your help demonstrating how much easier it would be to accommodate trans people in society instead of vilifying them, if we wanted to try.

          • I literally just addressed every one of your arguments.

            “But thank you for your help demonstrating how much easier it would be to accommodate trans people in society”
            You mean by building and adding, adjacent to what we have? like with how we accommodate others that are “different”. Cool. Never said otherwise.

            kermitron: “instead of vilifying them”
            also kermitron: trans women shouldn’t be able to compete in women’s sports because they are trans.

            That’s called transphobia, not strawman. And the trans-community will agree with me on that. Since it is they that have determined such things.

            So please, keep labelling it as a strawman to hide your own internalised transphobia. Easier that than having come to a realisation that, at the end of the day, you’re wrong.

          • By your logic, it’s ageist to seperate children’s sports instead of having under 12s vs under 19s, or sexist to have women’s soccer not participate in formal competitions vs men’s soccer, or ableist to not let heavyweight boxers compete for the bantamweight belt.
            Clearly that’s not the case.

            But it’s perfectly fine to let men and women use the bathroom that suits their needs. It’s fine for 13 year olds and 18 year olds to attend the same high schools.

            I am not and have never been talking about anything ther is contingent on biology and hormones. I am trying to address a social issue, one you are ill equipped to contend with, hence your constant deflection and honestly pathetic attempts at an ad hominem attack.

            The fact you’re comfortable with being so transparently duplicitous is honestly staggering.

          • Likewise you can keep making the (incorrect) claim that I’m transphobic based on what you (wrongly) claim to be the opinion of the entire trans community, and keep (falsely) making the claim that what I said (before you changed the subject like a rat fleeing a sinking ship) is equivalent to the things they have been expressed by Rowling.

        • It’s not my logic at all… The logic is given by the trans community who are the ones that outline what is and isn’t transphobic.

          By stating that trans women should not participate in women’s sports because they are trans (because of the obvious biological difference that gives), that is being transphobic, I did not say that, that is not my ruling. That is the ruling of the people who get to decide such things (trans community).

          Your examples are woeful ignorant to the fact that they are based on biological reasoning. An average 12yr old cannot compete (at least physically) with the average 19yr old, because of biology. The average female soccer player cannot compete with the average male soccer player, because of biology. The average Bantamweight cannot compete with the average Heavyweight, because of biology.

          But here’s the thing that you fail to recognise. According to the trans- community and their allies, gender is purely a social construct and has absolutely zero basis in biology. According to these people, a trans-woman and a cis-woman, for all intents and purposes are no different and trying to differentiate them based on biological indicators (like how JK referred to cis-women as “those who menstruate”), is transphobic. Once again, not my logic. These are the guidelines and rules set by those who represent the trans-community and their allies.

          ” I am trying to address a social issue, one you are ill equipped to contend with”

          The fact that you are unwilling to learn what is and isn’t transphobic, (which you have shown to be) to the point where, instead of actually stopping and thinking about it, you double down on the transphobic rhetoric, shows that it is you that is the one that is ill-equipped.

          You can continue to throw around “strawman”, “ad hominin”, “deflecting”, etc etc… But at the end of the day, you’re a dirty transphobe and until you actually start to take a look at yourself and actually learn… you always will be *shrug*

          • Likewise you can keep making the (incorrect) claim that I’m transphobic based on what you (wrongly) claim to be the opinion of the entire trans community, and keep (falsely) making the claim that what I said (before you changed the subject like a rat fleeing a sinking ship) is equivalent to the things they have been expressed by Rowling.

            You’re failing to differentiate between sex and gender. I was having a conversation about gender identity. You brought biological sex into it.

          • ahhh the good ol’, “I can say the N-word cos my black friend said I could.” reasoning. Nice one

            Bunnings still does click and collect, so you can buy a shovel to help you with digging that hole.

            Me: “You either fully accept that there is no difference between a trans-woman and cis-woman, (and trans-man and cis-man) and discussing biological differences is inherently transphobic (because gender is strictly a social construct with no biological component or input), or you are transphobic.”
            Me: “According to the trans- community and their allies, gender is purely a social construct and has absolutely zero basis in biology.”
            You: “You’re failing to differentiate between sex and gender.”

            Rightttttttt…..

            I brought up biology was to show that using biology as an excuse to disclude transwomen from women’s sports (which is what you believe should happen), is transphobic. (according to the rules made by the people that are allowed to make up such rules). I don’t think transwomen (and transmen) should be able to compete in women’s (and men’s) sports because of those biological differences, and that’s transphobic… because “gender is a social construct with no biological basis”.

            Talk about “ill-equipped”

    • As rabid as some people are making the response out to be from what I can tell it’s been pretty well received. The team made it very clear that they don’t endorse JK Rowling’s views and it looks like that was enough to reassure the fans who were really iffy about continued support of the franchise. It’s not easy to hype a game with this overshadowing it so I feel bad for the team but I think they’re getting more support than it appears.

    • thats sjws for you. omg you think different to me? die in fire! im so inclusive i exclude more than i include, give me woke points.
      trannies make up like 0.001% of the population, bout time we put things in perspective yeah?

      • How about this for perspective. You and all your friends and family make up around 0.0000000125% of the population. Should we use this “perspective” to guide how we treat you and everyone you care about?

      • This is a shit position to take. It’s as extreme as the one you are so vehemently opposing. Why can’t there be more nuance?

      • Jesus dude. If you want people to take you seriously, at least avoid using the slurs. You can argue your point without being outright offensive.

        • Depends on the person. Some Trans people are ok with it, and others are not. It’s not on the same level as the N-Word. But in general its not a great move to call them a ‘tranny’ in a public post. All a matter of perspective.

          • I agree it’s on the same level as the N word, (though I thought we were all agreed if you aren’t black, don’t say it unless you’re an actor playing a racist) and that in different contexts it might be seen or read differently, but I don’t really think it’s a matter of perspective when it’s an angry cis guy saying it.

            It’s obviously meant to offend and hurt people and lawlorz hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt.

      • Why I agree that the population of trans people is extremely low in comparison to non-trans people, I disagree with the perspective thing. There are 3 categories of Trans people, to my viewing of everything.

        1. Trans people who actually have gender dysphoria, and need treatment to solve it. This could be transitioning to any %, in one way or another.

        2. People who think there trans, but are simply having issues fitting in. There are videos of people that this has happened to on Youtube, and they went through the transition only to find it was not what they wanted and proceeded to ‘de-transition’. There interesting vids to listen to if you are up to finding them.

        3. The last type is the worst type. These are the people that are being ‘Trans’ just to get attention or to be ‘special’. The problem is you can not pick them out from the first type, and this I think is the biggest issue.

        • Please don’t take this as me jumping down your throat, but I think it’s important to note that there is only one ‘category’ of transgender people in the way that you imply, and that is ‘transgender people’. The other two categories you claim are not in fact transgender people, and calling them such is harmful to the transgender people as it works to de-legitimise their identify.

          It’s also important to point out that not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. “Gender dysphoria” is a mental disorder, as described by the DSM, and is characterised by the “significant distress or problems functioning” associated with the incongruity between gender identity and biological sex or assigned gender. “Transgender” is not a mental disorder.

          • >not all transgender people have gender dysphoria
            what

            I’ve been thinking about this for a few hours now and I can’t comprehend this line of thinking.
            If you don’t have gender dysphoria, you’re cisgendered. What you wrote just doesn’t make sense.

          • @john_stalvern – no, that’s not right.

            Transgender people are people that transition from their gender assigned at birth to another. Gender Dysphoria is ONE of the reasons people would make that decision, but you don’t have to or ever need to experience that dysphoria to have transitioned or to be transitioning.

            Think of it like 2 kids presented with a chocolate cake and a meat pie. One might hate chocolate, it’s disgusting to them and the meat pie is naturally what they want to eat instead. Now the other kid is fine with both, but just prefers the chocolate cake.
            Both are valid reasons to make the decision, but only one originates in discomfort with one of the options.

            To extend this slightly awkward analogy there are also gender fluid people that might prefer the proverbial cake or pie depending on the day and non-binary people that don’t like either, or prefer the lasagna sitting just behind the cake and pie.

            Basically it’s only a reason someone might wish to transition, but there are others that are equally valid.

          • While, CAD’s analogy is helpful, I think explaining the reality is easier.

            Some people don’t identify with the gender they were assigned at birth – they identify as another gender, or no gender at all – but they are comfortable with this. Whether or not they choose to undergo hormone therapy or surgery, they don’t have a crisis of identity, and it doesn’t cause them clinical anxiety, depression or impairment.

            Gender dysphoria occurs when the feelings of gender identity cause clinical anxiety, depression or impaired ability to function.

  • @john_stalvern – because while the words ‘gender dysphoria’ in common parlance would mean what you are suggesting, others are using it in the psychiatric context and therefore using the DSM definition which connotes a certain pathology.

  • The paradox of intolerance applies here. In order to have a tolerant society, we must not tolerate those who are intolerant.

    Being trans is not an action. It is not a controllable thing. It’s a state of being. Being intolerant of trans people is an action that marginalises trans people.

    In order to have a tolerant society, we must not tolerate those performing the action that hurts the people who are simply existing.

    • And who gets to define what is, and what is not tolerable?

      On one side, you have people that will say that X is tolerable, yet Y is not.
      On the other, you have people that will say that Y is tolerable, yet X is not.
      And on another, you have people that will say both are tolerable and that those people are not.
      And the last, that neither is tolerable, including those people.

      So tell me. Who gets to decide?

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!