The New York Times recently ran an opinion piece titled ‘In Defence of J.K Rowling’. Better late than never I suppose. One can’t help but think many a publication are slowly being hit with a crippling realisation that perhaps they got this whole gender debate wrong. And that when the dust has settled and the collateral damage can be clearly seen, they may just be held to account for their complicity.
I had a n-other-social-media conversation with someone who said that they were in a quandry about buying their child the Hogwarts Legacy game. On the one hand they didn't want their child to miss out, on the other hand they were concerned about "inclusion". I asked them to expand on this lack of inclusion.
The two immediate examples given back were JKR's tweet about "there used to be a word for people who menstruate" and her choice of nom de plume for the Strike series. Amongst other lines of debate, I pointed them to this article to which I got this rather astonishing (in my view) response, which I have their permission to share:
"This is a man who regularly attacks transgender rights, is "anti-woke" (read: "anti-empathy"), attacks critical race theory, and basically trying to milk the alt-right shitbag path.
So he writes a blog post where he takes some HRC statements, gives incomplete information about them, tries to paint Rowling in a positive light, and ignores the gestalt of the situation. That's a common tactic of bigots.
Do not share his work with me again."
I (@mart_brooks) do not agree with their perception of your work, and am frankly baffled by them.