Transgender rights discussion

[do.ob]

No, not Redcafe specifically, but we are here now on Redcafe talking about it and places like this won't show on searches. I said that people have been talking about it since the books came out, which they have, but because it's ordinary people duckduckgo won't notice. Jon Stewart and Pete Davidson will show on those searches, random people won't.

Here's a 2011 article, predating Rowling's heel turn by about a decade: https://www.jta.org/2011/08/26/ny/is-harry-potter-anti-semitic

The Rabbi concludes that the depiction isn't antisemitic, just like tons of people today conclude, but he didn't invent the question. He was asked. He also references another article about the same topic, because it was and has always been a thing.

If you like you can do a similarly restrictive search about Harry Potter and nazism, where you'll find few relevant hits. That doesn't change the fact that Voldemort and the death eaters are obviously inspired by Hitler and the nazis, and that this has been acknowleged since the books came out as well. This was something we talked about in like 6th grade at school, but DuckDuckGo doesn't seem to register that.

Sure, somewhere on the internet there's always someone, who talks about something. But you can't find that for a reason, because barely anyone cared. Now, 20 years later, it's a topic? Why? What has changed? The books have been there for 20 years. They haven't changed. It's the opinion that people hold of the author that changed, for statements, however offensive they may have been, totally unrelated to the content of the books.

Also the article you've linked literally starts with: "When I saw the latest Harry potter film", not book.

And for what it's worth, when I change the search to "harry potter nazi" with the same time parameters, the first hit is an article that starts with:

"JK ROWLING made the "chilling" discovery that villains in her books used the same twisted logic as the Nazis when she visited a Holocaust museum, the author has revealed".

 

[phelans shorts]

Would any of this matter if you didn't know anything about her opinion on trans (which you don't agree with clearly)? Or would many people care about it?

Well yes it clearly would. As has been mentioned these criticisms have been there for a long time.

 

[SilentWitness]

Cho Chang is alliterative same as Pansy Parkinson or Luna Lovegood.

No doubting that literally no more thought went into her name beyond that. And why should it have?

It makes no sense as a name. Yes, names can be made up but when you are creating characters from cultures and backgrounds where the names matter and have meaning and definition to that culture, it becomes a problem.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Sure, somewhere on the internet there's always someone, who talks about something. But you can't find that for a reason, because barely anyone cared. Now, 20 years later, it's a topic? Why? What has changed? The books have been there for 20 years. They haven't changed. It's the opinion that people hold of the author that changed, for statements, however offensive they may have been, totally unrelated to the content of the books.

Also the article you've linked literally starts with: "When I saw the latest Harry potter film", not book.

And for what it's worth, when I change the search to "harry potter nazi" with the same time parameters, the first hit is an article that starts with:

"JK ROWLING made the "chilling" discovery that villains in her books used the same twisted logic as the Nazis when she visited a Holocaust museum, the author has revealed".

Yes, the film. In 2011. So it can't have been because of the trans stuff, and the person writing in didn't solely focus on visual cues.

That article you mention is from seven years after the first book came out, which means that it's seven years after people noticed the obvious parallells to nazism. The reason you find that article is because Rowling herself talked about it.

There are several reasons why people might talk more about it now than before. Obviously Rowling is more controversial now than ever before, so she's talked about more as a person rather than just a writer. Also the world is more online now, and thanks to things like social media things that normal people talk about will easier reach out. Also people are more aware about stereotypes than they used to be, and more people care than before. The Lord of the Rings came out 70 years ago, and now suddenly people are talking antisemitism? Why? What has changed? Not the books, that's for sure.

 

[Mike Smalling]

They’re very clearly based on the way goblins have always been portrayed on print/film beforehand!

Now maybe, just maybe, Rowling should have demanded to have been involved in the art direction and insisted that the goblins were portrayed in a way that was visually different from the way goblins have always been represented, in case viewers got the wrong impression?

Whatever, spinning her failure to do so as deliberate antisemitism on her part is an outrageous stretch.

This is not an attempt at a gotcha or anything, but who actually did that? Who called it deliberate antisemitism? Are you talking about people in this thread, or reactions you have seen elsewhere on the internet? I originally brought up the movie goblins as having too many classical antisemitic tropes, both physical and behavioral, but never called J.K. Rowling an antisemite.

 

[horsechoker]

As a wanker I am offended at this unfounded association with goblins.

It does make sense

 

[do.ob]

Yes, the film. In 2011. So it can't have been because of the trans stuff, and the person writing in didn't solely focus on visual cues.

That article you mention is from seven years after the first book came out, which means that it's seven years after people noticed the obvious parallells to nazism. The reason you find that article is because Rowling herself talked about it.

Are you referring to the interviewer, who began the piece with " When I saw the latest Harry potter film" or the interviewee, who responded with "Whoa there! Calling Harry Potter anti-Semitic is downright sacrilegious." and "If every grotesque, undersized, shriveled fictitious being were assumed to be a Jew, that would also mean that Yoda, Jewish would be, and E.T. would stop in at shul before phoning home.".

There are several reasons why people might talk more about it now than before. Obviously Rowling is more controversial now than ever before, so she's talked about more as a person rather than just a writer. Also the world is more online now, and thanks to things like social media things that normal people talk about will easier reach out. Also people are more aware about stereotypes than they used to be, and more people care than before. The Lord of the Rings came out 70 years ago, and now suddenly people are talking antisemitism? Why? What has changed? Not the books, that's for sure.

You think people complaining, because some Asian supporting character's first name is technically a last name or the author may have committed the sin of pairing a Korean name with a Chinese name is a normal concern for stereotypes? Have you watched any Hollywood movie or TV show ever? Very few will hold up to that level of scrutiny.
And ignoring the notion that 70 years ago is comparable with 20 years ago: I wouldn't have posted if all people was saying was that the goblins in the movies are pretty close to antisemitic caricatures or stereotypes, they clearly are. But neither would I necessarily blame an author for what the art department of a film adaption produces, nor does the hunt for reasons to be offended end there.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Agreed. I'm East Indian and seeing the names Parvati and Padma Patil in the books felt...I dunno, cool. Or something. It's hard to find a good word for feelings I'm trying to recall 20 years after the fact, but it definitely made a positive impression on me. The only weird part was when they dressed both in saris for the Yule Ball (in the movies) when the books have them dressed like all the other kids in wizard "dress robes". While that seemed jarring to me, I'm sure that whoever made that decision was intending to highlight diversity in some way.

My point here being that one can look back, edit out some points, emphasize some others, and create an unreasonable narrative about racism.

That’s the thing, right? I’m sure kids of Chinese or Korean descent felt similar emotions reading about a character who was similarly relatable. Even if clumsily named. That’s why inclusivity matters. And it was rare enough in that era, especially in books of that genre.

All of which makes it incredibly mean-spirited (and, obviously incorrect) to try and spin these less than perfect efforts at inclusivity into the author being a racist bigot. It couldn’t be more obvious what’s going on here and it’s got very little to do with her opinion on people with a different ethnicity to herself.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

It does make sense

I see what you did there.

 

[SilentWitness]

That’s the thing, right? I’m sure kids of Chinese or Korean descent felt similar emotions reading about a character who was similarly relatable. Even if clumsily named. That’s why inclusivity matters. And it was rare enough in that era, especially in books of that genre.

All of which makes it incredibly mean-spirited (and, obviously incorrect) to try and spin these less than perfect efforts at inclusivity into the author being a racist bigot. It couldn’t be more obvious what’s going on here and it’s got very little to do with her opinion on people with a different ethnicity to herself.

If you're trying to add inclusivity then you should do it correctly otherwise it doesn't come across well and has the opposite effect.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Are you referring to the interviewer, who began the piece with " When I saw the latest Harry potter film" or the interviewee, who responded with "Whoa there! Calling Harry Potter anti-Semitic is downright sacrilegious." and "If every grotesque, undersized, shriveled fictitious being were assumed to be a Jew, that would also mean that Yoda, Jewish would be, and E.T. would stop in at shul before phoning home.".



You think people complaining, because some Asian supporting character's first name is technically a last name or the author may have committed the sin of pairing a Korean name with a Chinese name is a normal concern for stereotypes? Have you watched any Hollywood movie or TV show ever? Very few will hold up to that level of scrutiny.
And ignoring the notion that 70 years ago is comparable with 20 years ago: I wouldn't have posted if all people was saying was that the goblins in the movies are pretty close to antisemitic caricatures or stereotypes, they clearly are. But neither would I necessarily blame an author for what the art department of a film adaption produces, nor does the hunt for reasons to be offended end there.

There is no interviewer or interviewee, a columnist is answering a question from a reader. And I'm referring to the person who saw the depiction as antisemitic, so the reader.

I think you'll find that people tend to point out stereotypes in Hollywood movies and in TV shows, yes. A lot of them don't have a Rowling defense force, and without the objections there's not much to talk about. This thread would be dead pages ago if people weren't denying the Jewish stereotypes.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If you're trying to add inclusivity then you should do it correctly otherwise it doesn't come across well and has the opposite effect.

Nah, it really doesn’t. Definitely not in this instance. There’s no way that one clumsily named character somehow has the opposite effect to inclusivity. But more to the point, it sure as shit isn’t racist or bigoted.

 

[Tarrou]

she named a Chinese kid cho chang?

 

[nimic]

Nah, it really doesn’t. Definitely not in this instance. There’s no way that one clumsily named character somehow has the opposite effect to inclusivity. But more to the point, it sure as shit isn’t racist or bigoted.

It's not necessarily bigoted on its own, no, but we already know that Rowling is somewhat bigoted and ignorant. It's another possible small piece of the puzzle, and I don't quite understand why some people are being so gung-ho about defending her every move.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Would any of this matter if you didn't know anything about her opinion on trans (which you don't agree with clearly)? Or would many people care about it?

Nobody should agree with it, it's abhorrent if you actually look into what she's saying and who she associates herself with.

 

[nimic]

And it was rare enough in that era, especially in books of that genre.

What era, and what genre? Fantasy books released around 2000? It really wasn't rare, and certainly not rare enough to give anyone credit just for including a minor character of a different ethnicity or background.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There is no interviewer or interviewee, a columnist is answering a question from a reader. And I'm referring to the person who saw the depiction as antisemitic, so the reader.

I think you'll find that people tend to point out stereotypes in Hollywood movies and in TV shows, yes. A lot of them don't have a Rowling defense force, and without the objections there's not much to talk about. This thread would be dead pages ago if people weren't denying the Jewish stereotypes.

It would also be dead if people weren’t pretending that Rowling a) created this particular Jewish stereotype or b) ensured that it appeared in a movie based on her book. Neither of which actually happened. Obviously.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What era, and what genre? Fantasy books released around 2000? It really wasn't rare, and certainly not rare enough to give anyone credit just for including a minor character of a different ethnicity or background.

Fantasy books released ever. And there’s been three characters mentioned in the last couple of pages of this thread. I’m sure there’s more overall. I haven’t read the book.

 

[Scandi Red]

she named a Chinese kid cho chang?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

she named a Chinese kid cho chang?

The really funny bit is when people claim this makes her a racist bigot.

 

[nimic]

Fantasy books released ever. And there’s been three characters mentioned in the last couple of pages of this thread. I’m sure there’s more overall. I haven’t read the book.

You say you haven't read Harry Potter (I haven't either, just watched the films), but have you read much fantasy other than that? Because I have, and I did when Harry Potter was being released back in the day, and I don't think it's anything special. She's not particularly bad about it, like some fantasy writers were, but I don't think she deserves any particular credit either.

 

[Arruda]

The thread would probably also be dead if you took a rest Pogue

I think this is the most repetitive I've seen of you.

Though this is probably just because I use the cafe in short binges. Those 120k posts must have come out of somewhere

 

[maniak]

I haven't read it, but from what I've seen she used a lot of anti-transgender tropes in a recent book. Given we know what kind of person she is and apparently her personal opinions bleed into her writing, I don't think it's far fetched at all to analyze her books taking this into account.

 

[maniak]

I think this is the most repetitive I've seen of you.

Just visit any positive thread about arsenal.

 

[SilentWitness]

Nah, it really doesn’t. Definitely not in this instance. There’s no way that one clumsily named character somehow has the opposite effect to inclusivity. But more to the point, it sure as shit isn’t racist or bigoted.

It's not just one clumsily named character. The video @Scandi Red posted shows that.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The thread would probably also be dead if you took a rest Pogue

I think this is the most repetitive I've seen of you.

Though this is probably just because I use the cafe in short binges. Those 120k posts must have come out of somewhere

Fair point. I don’t even like J.K. Rowling. I’ve only read one of her books and she seems like a bit of a dick. I’m just way too argumentative. Combination of that and the death of nuance on social media being one of my pet hates. Just winds me up the way everyone we disagree with has to be so completely one dimensional. I’ll take a break from the thread now. Like you say, I may have made my point enough times by now!

 

[nimic]

You don't get to 121k posts and two Poster of the Year awards without the unparalleled ability to keep a CE thread going for a few pages.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You don't get to 121k posts and two Poster of the Year awards without the unparalleled ability to keep a CE thread going for a few pages.

It’s a curse. In a way.

 

[Arruda]

Fair point. I don’t even like J.K. Rowling. I’ve only read one of her books and she seems like a bit of a dick. I’m just way too argumentative. Combination of that and the death of nuance on social media being one of my pet hates. Just winds me up the way everyone we disagree with has to be so completely one dimensional. I’ll take a break from the thread now. Like you say, I may have made my point enough times by now!

Yes, but I was joking and you endlessly arguing about something like that reminds me that it was by reading your posts ages ago that I understood what a Devil's Advocate is. It's funny.

 

[Mike Smalling]

she named a Chinese kid cho chang?

Take a wild guess what phrase was in her mind, either consciously or subconsciously, when she came up with that name

 

[Bebe]

If you're trying to add inclusivity then you should do it correctly otherwise it doesn't come across well and has the opposite effect.

I think the definition of "doing inclusivity correctly" changes over time. As I said earlier, her "inclusivity efforts" re: the Patil twins can certainly be seen as clumsy, but I appreciated them as a kid and I still do today.

 

[SilentWitness]

I think the definition of "doing inclusivity correctly" changes over time. As I said earlier, her "inclusivity efforts" re: the Patil twins can certainly be seen as clumsy, but I appreciated them as a kid and I still do today.

There is at least some connectivity with the Patil twins and the culture they're representing (despite being able to argue laziness of them too) in comparison to Chang who has a confused background and name.

 

[The Corinthian]

Some of the slaves, so that's cool.

Agreed - it’s a shame that Harry, the wizard, and Hermione, the witch, didn’t free all of the house elves in this magical world from slavery in the time they had between riding dragons and fighting evil wizards with their magical wands. It sets a bad precedent for real life.

 

[Cascarino]

Some of this just feels like people grasping at anything that could in any way be perceived as negative to jump on Rowling for, whether it has any basis in reality or not.

Would any of this matter if you didn't know anything about her opinion on trans (which you don't agree with clearly)? Or would many people care about it?

I might as well say “ Would defending her matter to you if you didn’t know her opinion on trans issues? Which you agree with clearly?” For what value this adds to the discussion. It just avoids anything that’s actually been written and contributes nothing, in favour of arguing against a position that hasn’t been put forward. It just negates everything that’s actually written in favour of assuming you know the real motivation and intent of their posts.

Over the last few pages people have been talking about her work and referring to that, and no one has accused her of being an antisemitic person or even deliberately doing anything. I’m not sure where the wires got crossed because we have a bunch of posters saying it’s unfair she’s being called a racist bigot and a raging antisemite about Cho Chang and goblins, when this simply has not happened in this discussion.

Sure, somewhere on the internet there's always someone, who talks about something. But you can't find that for a reason, because barely anyone cared. Now, 20 years later, it's a topic? Why? What has changed? The books have been there for 20 years. They haven't changed. It's the opinion that people hold of the author that changed, for statements, however offensive they may have been, totally unrelated to the content of the books.

Also the article you've linked literally starts with: "When I saw the latest Harry potter film", not book.

And for what it's worth, when I change the search to "harry potter nazi" with the same time parameters, the first hit is an article that starts with:

"JK ROWLING made the "chilling" discovery that villains in her books used the same twisted logic as the Nazis when she visited a Holocaust museum, the author has revealed".

Im not sure what the “for what it’s worth” part is meant to signify? (Genuinely asking because obviously I’ve missed something)

The main point about the time elapsed and the view of the author changing and this being the main reason etc doesn’t hold up at all though. Obviously when details about an author or the creator behind some content comes out it might recontextualise certain points etc the book/show/moviemade, but 20 years is ample enough time for views held about something to shift and change. Especially nowadays where the internet hasn’t just made communication more widespread, but it’s also allowed a wider array of voices to be heard.

Movies provide the best example to the point i’m making. Using the 20 years time frame, you have a movie like “Shallow Hal”. It’s the same movie now as it was 20 years ago, but when discussed by today’s standards it’s seen as far more contentious, and a lot of the criticisms it would face today were far more muted or non existent back then. And the more popular an older IP, the more likely it is to be re-examined and analysed by new viewers/readers.

 

[nimic]

Agreed - it’s a shame that Harry, the wizard, and Hermione, the witch, didn’t free all of the house elves in this magical world from slavery in the time they had between riding dragons and fighting evil wizards with their magical wands. It sets a bad precedent for real life.

It either means something or it doesn't. You're the one who used the word emancipated. You're allowed to think that emancipating some slaves makes for a good conclusion to a character arc, and I'm allowed to think that maybe it's not really such a big deal.

 

[The Corinthian]

It either means something or it doesn't. You're the one who used the word emancipated. You're allowed to think that emancipating some slaves makes for a good conclusion to a character arc, and I'm allowed to think that maybe it's not really such a big deal.

…or it’s just a convenient plot device to show that x character is ‘good’? Which it is. This hyper-analysis of fairly basic fantasy children’s books with typical character arcs is bizarre.

 

[nimic]

Okay?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't think she did stuff intentionally but I think it's also your job as a writer to make sure things are accurate and it's a problem when you use lazy stereotypes consistently or give a chinese character two korean surnames. Simple research would solve this.

Well, it is a little more nuanced than that. Cho and Chang are both Chinese surnames using the Wade-Giles romanization. Most people think of Chinese as pinyin where the name would be written Zhou Zhang but the West has had an awful problem with translating Chinese phonemes into written English. Pinyin is the most common but Taiwan still romanizes in Wade-Giles as Chang. It can get difficult sometimes on a wuxia forum I frequent because the Hong Kong and Taiwan posters always use variations of Wade-Giles and it looks really off to me being more familiar with pinyin. So yeah Cho and Chang are also Wade-Giles Chinese and not exclusively Korean.

Also, it's not entirely unheard of for a child to be given a surname as a first name. I have a cousin who had a family surname given to her as a first name to honor that side of the family but it is obviously pretty rare.

That said, it's still a lazy and poor effort on the part of a writer that should be doing better (I don't think Rowling thought the character's back story through that much).

 

[HookedOnAPhelan]

@Pogue Mahone

If you ever have a lot of time on your hands then I highly recommend the video below.

This video was clearly made by an insane person.

 

[Scandi Red]

This video was clearly made by an insane person.

If you watched the whole video and that is your conclusion, then my guess is that you're either a neoliberal centrist or a conservative.