Comments

Show 6 more comments
Show 11 more comments
[hidden]

FRien said in comment #2639445:

When someone I like make something: "it's important to separate art from the artist."
When someone I don't like make something: "HEY SO GUYS THAT PERSON IS ANTI-TRANS, SO DO NOT BUY HER ART OR READ HER BOOKS EVER, BECAUSE REMEMBER, THAT PERSON IS EVIL AND DON'T FORGET TO REMIND EVERYONE IN CASE ONE OF US FORGET"
Double standards, man...

In this particular case, she's still profiting from Harry Potter, and funneling her book/movie/show profits into anti-trans charities and foundations, which has had noticeable effects on the UK's political climate. I don't think it's an ethical lapse to enjoy the work of someone with politics I disagree with, but I do have hesitations about contributing money to someone who has made it her explicit political goal to make me unable to hold office/deprive me of medication.

[hidden]

verifiably said in comment #2641449:

funneling her book/movie/show profits into anti-trans charities and foundations

I'm gonna need a source on that, because all I heard was that she wanted a shelter for abused women to stay for women instead of also allowing men in, and absolutely nothing else. And even so, it seems to have been deformed into your usual "trans women are not women" thing by people who hate her for reasons that are still unclear.

[hidden]

FRien said in comment #2641454:

I'm gonna need a source on that, because all I heard was that she wanted a shelter for abused women to stay for women instead of also allowing men in, and absolutely nothing else. And even so, it seems to have been deformed into your usual "trans women are not women" thing by people who hate her for reasons that are still unclear.

Well, in this case, she donated 70k to a group which attempted to legally define womanhood in a way that excluded trans women,, specifically to enshrine a definition of womanhood in Scottish law that excludes trans women, and the shelter you describe is one that neither provides services to nor hires transgender women, defining womanhood as cis womanhood.

[hidden]

All this aside, I don't get how genderswap characters should have anything to do with transsexuality. This is (should be?) an AU where Malfoy would be a cis woman regardless...

What is next, will Endmin and almost every gacha protag be tagged as transgender too, since you actually get to change gender at will there? (please don't actually do it, I'm trying to illuminate the issue here, not give ppl any ideas).

Updated by eumesmo

[hidden]

verifiably said in comment #2641463:

Well, in this case, she donated 70k to a group which attempted to legally define womanhood in a way that excluded trans women,, specifically to enshrine a definition of womanhood in Scottish law that excludes trans women, and the shelter you describe is one that neither provides services to nor hires transgender women, defining womanhood as cis womanhood.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I read the two articles, and it bothers me to admit it, but it does seem the hate against Rowling is legit, and not just a case of miscommunication. That sucks, but then again. I like Alfred Hitchcock's movies despite the dude being a giant piece of shit. I'll stick to enjoying Harry Potter while not liking the author.
Thank you again for taking the time to link to actual, real articles.

eumesmo said in comment #2641507:

All this aside, I don't get how genderswap characters should have anything to do with transsexuality. This is (should be?) an AU where Malfoy would be a cis woman regardless...

I mean, that too.

[hidden]

FRien said in comment #2641579:

Thank you, I appreciate that. I read the two articles, and it bothers me to admit it, but it does seem the hate against Rowling is legit, and not just a case of miscommunication. That sucks, but then again. I like Alfred Hitchcock's movies despite the dude being a giant piece of shit. I'll stick to enjoying Harry Potter while not liking the author.
Thank you again for taking the time to link to actual, real articles.

In this particular case, I'd make the distinction that Alfred Hitchcock is incapable of profiting from being a giant piece of shit, due to being dead, while Rowling is alive and continuously funneling her profits into anti-transgender activism.

But, yeah, I never mind linking sources. If I'm going to make a claim, I should be ready to demonstrate why I believe in it, right?

[hidden]

But meh lore tho!? According to the continuing antics of Dragon Fetish developing boy; the Mongals have been around, evolved and reproduced over centuries... With the exception of the Robots and possibly the Grim Reaper. So... How do the Skeleton-gals... Surely It can't be as simple as humans who pass-away in this world turn into Skeleton Mongals

Updated by Dnte

[hidden]

DammitCarl said in comment #2605661:

Dude's wondering "damn you can fit HOW big?"

Dnte said in comment #2605940:

But meh lore tho!? According to the continuing antics of Dragon Fetish developing boy; the Mongals have been around, evolved and reproduced over centuries... With the exception of the Robots and possibly the Grim Reaper. So... How do the Skeleton-gals... Surely It can't be as simple as humans who pass-away in this world turn into Skeleton Mongals

Hmm, her skull has horns and that rib cage is NOT human, so Mogal skeletons are either their own thing or at least she didn't form from anything human.

1 2 3 4 5