#harry signals a trans identity means 'harry is a woman'. But also what if he were is that really so threatening to you

[noahcontrol]

Little Freak - a detailed analysis

Hey there! I wanted to talk about Little Freak by Harry Styles. I’m going to start by saying that I will be analyzing this song from the perspective of being gender-neutral/trans. As a trans man myself, I came across many lyrics that resonated with me, and I’d like to throw light in that specific direction. I also believe that this song is the continuation of ‘SHE’. 

1. ‘little freak’ - I think he is conversing with his feminine side. Freak is used as a slur for the LGBTQ+ community a lot, I think it could mean that Harry saw his feminine side as a freak/abomination. He was scared to look into it and think about it. 

2. ‘Jezebel’ - Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab in the Hebrew Book of Kings, has long had a bad girl reputation. According to the Bible, she provoked a conflict by defying the great prophets Elijah and Elisha. 

Jezebel was a woman who defied great prophets, similar to what Christians say about the LGBTQ+ community, that we defy what God made our bodies for. Harry is calling his feminine side that name because he was scared to think he could (maybe?) be trans, thought of him being that way scares him.

3. 'stay green a little while' - immature in age or judgment; untrained; inexperienced; gullible; easily fooled. Green means immaturity and being gullible, which makes sense in this perspective. People in the community tend to have internalized homophobia due to the society being heteronormative and normalizing homophobia, so people when young tend to learn and pick this up, thinking being heterosexual/cisgender is only the correct way of living. 

We are already aware that Harry has been forced into the closet for years and has been forced to play the "Lady's man" narrative, but recently Harry has been trying to be more open about his gender identity, has been singing about it and leaving signals for all of us to know. 

*also something to note, Harry has been changing from Blue-Green to Red-Blue, Red psychologically signifies strength, power, courage proving that he is not the gullible person anymore and has started to understand and embrace who he is.*

4.'you bring blue lights to dreams' - Blue calls to mind feelings of calmness or serenity. It is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly. Blue is often seen as a sign of stability and reliability. 

She, Harry's feminine side makes him stable in who he is, and who he can become. It means that She is the one who keeps him true to himself, to who he is. 

5.'starry haze, crystal ball, somehow you’ve become some paranoia' - Haze means being unable to see things clearly, prevents you from seeing things from afar (future), he is uncertain of his future self, who She might be. 

Crystal balls have been used for fortune-telling and clairvoyance since the first century. I think this entire line means his future is hazy and he doesn't know what it entails for him but he wants to know whether She'll be happier than She is today.

Harry is telling his feminine side that she follows him around, and never leaves him alone, he is constantly thinking about her. This takes us back to She - Fine Line.

"She lives in daydreams with me She's the first one that I see"

She is always in his head with him, in his bed, everywhere he goes, She is lurking with him. 

6. 'wet dream just dangling' - well this is self-explanatory but I'll explain it in brief. Harry is so in love with the idea of Her that it makes him <you get it> and he wakes up to him being wet. 

7. 'but your gift is wasted on me' - this line states that She has the talent for songwriting. She writes while he sings those words, he gets the recognition, he gets the gift. 

8. 'I was thinking about who you are' - Same line as She, he is wondering whom She is, and exploring his gender identity. 

9. 'your delicate point of view' - Harry sees Her as timid, ethereal and benign. 

10.'did you dress up for Halloween? I spilled beer on your friend, I’m not sorry' - H dressed up for Harryween, he got to express Her and become her first time in the eyes of the public. Halloween could also be a metaphor for being someone else for a day, but in his case, he is becoming more like himself (Her). 

11. track suit and a ponytail, you hide the body, all that yoga gave you' - we have seen him wearing these many a times in his early eras. 

We often see Harry wearing pants and coats to hide his body, maybe it is due to dysphoria, but I can't say for certain. I feel like She is telling him these, she is basically telling him that "you hide me, the way you built yourself, you hide away how you feel about me in public".

12.'red wine and a ginger ale but you would make fun of me for sure' - I think this basically means he tends to drink a lot to forget about her but She ends up being too feminine. 

13.'I disrespected you, jumped in feet first and I landed too hard, a broken ankle, karma rules' - H disrecpected his feminine side for a long time, trying to ignore and pretend She doesn't exist, but she haunted him everywhere he went, and hence become a paranoia. Karma rules as even though he tried to ignore her, he couldn't cause She is a part of him.

14.'you never saw my birthmark' - Birthmarks are an area of pigmented or raised skin that can be present at birth or appear shortly afterward. Birthmark is metaphorical here to Harry's transness, meaning he was born this way, and that She is a part of him and it can never change, even if he tried to ignore and pretend She doesn't exist, there is no use because She is him.

Conclusion: Little Freak is about Harry feeling uncomfortable about his gender, ignoring her due to heternormativity, coming to love her and accept her and figure her out. I am nothing but proud of Harry, he has come a long way, and not everybody is able to do it so bravely as he does and I love him for that. 

#little freak #took me forever #hs3 spoilers #harry is a genius #gender identity #trans #this took me ages #dont let this flop

[a-room-of-my-own]

Have you read "An Apology to JK Rowling" by Petra Bueskens on Areo? I'm pathetically grateful to read something so clever and well articulated on the subject after the amount of abuse JK has been subjected to

It's a great piece so here it is, thank you anon!

 Rowling recently published an eminently reasonable, heartfelt treatise, outlining why it is important to preserve the category of woman. There’s only one thing wrong with it: it assumes a rational interlocutor. Rowling outlines why the biological and legal category of sex is important: in sports, in rape crisis shelters, in prisons, in toilets and changing rooms, for lesbians who want to sleep with natal women only and at the level of reality in general. Rowling marshals her experiences as an androgynous girl, as a domestic violence and sexual assault survivor and as someone familiar with the emotional perils of social media, in ways that have resonated with many women (and men). Her writing is clear, unpretentious, thoughtful, moving, vulnerable and honest. At no point does she use exclusionary or hostile language or say that trans women do not exist, have no right to exist or that she wants to rob them of their rights. Her position is that natal women exist and have a right to limit access to their political and personal spaces. Period.

Of course, to assume that her missive would be engaged with in the spirit in which it was intended, is to make the mistake of imagining that the identitarian left is broadly committed to secular, rational discourse. It is not. Its activist component has transmogrified into a religious movement, which brooks no opposition and no discussion. You must agree with every tenet or else you’re a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, etc. Because its followers are fanatics, Rowling is being subjected to an extraordinary level of abuse. There seems to be no cognitive dissonance among those who accuse her of insensitivity and then proceed to call her a cunt, bitch or hag and insist that they want to assault and even kill her (see this compilation of tweets on Medium). She has been accused of ruining childhoods. Some even claim that the actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books—reality has become optional for some of these identitarians. Rowling’s age, menstrual status and vagina come in for particularly nasty attention and many trans women (or those masquerading as such) write of wanting to sexually assault her with lady cock, as a punishment for speaking out. I haven’t seen misogyny like this since Julia Gillard became our prime minister.

The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving. While in-group preferences and biases are inevitable, these exist within an overarching deliberative framework. This style of dialogue assumes the validity of a persuasive argument grounded in reason and evidence, even if—as Rowling does—it also utilises experience and feeling. By default, it assumes that civil conflict and opposition are essential devices in the pursuit of truth.

Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions and, together with them, the shared norms by which we create and sustain social consensus. There is no grounding metanarrative, there are no binding norms of civil discourse in the digital age. Indeed, as Jaron Lanier shows with his bummer paradigm (Behaviours of Users Modified and Made into an Empire for Rent) social media is destroying the fabric of our personal and political lives (although, with a different business model and more robust regulation, it need not do so). The algorithm searching for and recording your every click, like and share, your every purchase, search term, conversation, movement, facial expression, social connection and preference rewards engagement above all else—which means that your feed—an aptly infantile descriptor—will quickly become full of the things you and others like you are most likely to be motivated to click, like and share. Outrage is a more effective mechanism through which to foster engagement than almost anything else. In Lanier’s terms, this produces a “menagerie of wraiths”—a bunch of digitised dementors: fake and bad actors, paid troll armies and dyspeptic bots—designed to confect mob outrage.

The norms of civil discourse are being eroded, as we increasingly inhabit individualised media ecosystems, designed to addict, distract, absorb, outrage, manipulate and incite us. These internecine culture wars damage us all. As Lanier notes, social media is biased “not towards the left or right but downwards.” As a result, we are witnessing a catastrophic decline in the standards of our democratic institutions and discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary culture wars around the trans question, where confected outrage is the norm.

This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.

In this discombobulating universe, sex-based rights are turned into insults against trans people. Gender-critical feminists are recast as immoral bigots, engaged in deliberately hurtful, even life-threatening, speech. Rowling is not who we thought she was, her ex-fans wail, her characters and plots conceal hidden reservoirs of homophobia and bigotry. A few grandstanders attempt to distinguish themselves by saying that they have always been able to smell a rat—no, not Scabbers—and therefore hated the books from the outset. Nowhere amid this morass of moral grandstanding and outrage is there any serious engagement with her ideas.

Those of us on the left—and left-wing feminists in particular—who find trans ideology fraught, for all the reasons Rowling outlines, are a very small group. While Rowling is clearly privileged, she has also become the figurehead of a rapidly dwindling and increasingly vilified group of feminists, pejoratively labelled terfs, who want to preserve women’s sex-based rights and spaces. Although our arguments align with centrist, conservative and common sense positions, ours is not the prevailing view in academia, public service or the media, arts and culture industries, where we are most likely to be located (when we are not at home with our children). In most of these workplaces, a sex-based rights position is defined a priori as bigoted, indeed as hate speech. It can get us fired, attacked, socially ostracised and even assaulted.

As leftist thinkers who believe in freedom of speech and thought, who find creeping ideological and bureaucratic control alarming, we are horrified by these increasingly vicious denunciations by the left. The centre right and libertarians—the neo-cons, post-liberals and the IDW—are invariably smug about how funny it is to watch the left eat itself. But it’s true: some progressive circles are now defined by a call out/cancel culture to rival that of the most repressive of totalitarian states. Historically, it was progressives who fought against limits on freedom of speech and action. But the digital–identitarian left split off from the old print-based left some time ago, and has become its own beast. A contingent of us are deeply critical of these new directions.

Only a few on the left have had the gumption to speak up for us. Few have even defended our right to express our opinions. Those who have spoken out include former media darlings Germaine Greer and Michael Leunig. Many reader comments on left-leaning news sites claim that Rowling is to blame for the ill treatment she is suffering. Rowling can bask in the consequences of her free speech, they claim, as if having a different opinion from the woke majority means that she is no longer entitled to respect, and that any and all abuse is warranted—or, at least, to be expected. Where is the outrage on her behalf? Where are the writers, film makers, actors and artists defending her right to speak her mind?

Of course, the actors from the Harry Potter films are under no obligation to agree with JK Rowling just because she made them famous. They don’t owe her their ideological fealty: but they owe her better forms of disagreement. When Daniel Radcliffe repeats the nonsensical chant trans women are women, he’s not developing an argument, he’s reciting a mantra. When he invokes experts, who supposedly know more about the subject than Rowling, he betrays his ignorance of how contested the topic of transgender medicine actually is: for example, within endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry, sociology, and psychology (the controversies within the latter discipline have been demonstrated by the numerous recent resignations from the prestigious Tavistock and Portman gender identity clinic). The experts are a long way from consensus in what remains a politically fraught field.

Trans women are women is not an engaged reply. It is a mere arrangement of words, which presupposes a faith that cannot be questioned. To question it, we are told, causes harm—an assertion that transforms discussion into a thought crime. If questioning this orthodoxy is tantamount to abuse, then feminists and other dissenters have been gaslit out of the discussion before they can even enter it. This is especially pernicious because feminists in the west have been fighting patriarchy for several hundred years and we do not intend our cause to be derailed at the eleventh hour by an infinitesimal number of natal males, who have decided that they are women. Now, we are told, trans women are women, but natal females are menstruators. I can’t imagine what the suffragists would have made of this patently absurd turn of events.

There has been a cacophony of apologies to the trans community for Rowling’s apparently tendentious and hate-filled words. But no one has paused to apologise to Rowling for the torrent of abuse she has suffered and for being mischaracterised so profoundly.

So, I’m sorry, JK Rowling. I’m sorry that you will not receive the respectful disagreement you deserve: disagreement with your ideas not your person, disagreement with your politics, rather than accusations of wrongspeak. I’m sorry that schools, publishing staff and fan clubs are now cancelling you. And I’m sorry that you will be punished—because cancel culture is all about punishment. I’m sorry that you are being burned at the digital stake for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.

But remember this, JK—however counterintuitive this may seem to progressives, whose natural home is on the fringe—most people are looking on incredulously at the disconnect between culture and reality. Despite raucous protestations to the contrary, you are on the right side of history—not just because of the points you make, but because of how you make them.

#Jkr #Team jkr

[raptured-night]

Hi! I’m part of the lgbtq+ community and Severus is my favorite HP character and I was wondering (if you have the time and feel obliged) if you could please give me a few examples of how he’s queer? It’s been a few years since I reread the books, and def before I came out, so I’m a little in the dark here lol Thanks!!

First of all, I just wanted to apologize for how long it has taken me to properly respond to your ask. I’ve been dealing with some ongoing health issues that have turned me into something of a moody writer. I’ll get random spurts of energy and inspiration and then hit a wall of absolute writer’s block assisted by a major case of executive dysfunction every single time I try to respond to the multiple asks languishing in my inbox. Fortunately, I found myself involved in a discussion just today that addressed your ask so perfectly that I wanted to share it with you.  In the very least, that discussion has also managed to shake off my writer’s block temporarily so that I have found myself in the right head-space to finally be able to give this lovely ask the thought and attention that I feel it deserves. 

Although, in regards to the Snape discourse I linked above, I feel that I should warn you in advance that the discussion was prompted by an anti-Snape poster who made a rather ill-thought meme (I know there are many in the Snapedom who would rather just avoid seeing anti-Snape content altogether, so I try to warn when I link people to debates and discussions prompted by anti-posts) but the thoughtful responses that the anti-Snape poster unintentionally generated from members of the Snapedom (particularly by @deathdaydungeon whose critical analyses of Snape and, on occasions, other Harry Potter characters is always so wonderfully nuanced, thought-provoking, and well-considered), are truly excellent and worth reading, in my opinion. Also, as I fall more loosely under the “a” (I’m grey-ace/demisexual) of the lgbtqa+ flag and community I would prefer to start any discussions about Snape as a queer character or as a character with queer coding by highlighting the perspectives of people in the Snapedom who are actually queer before sharing any thoughts of my own.

In addition, I also wanted to share a few other posts where Snape’s queer coding has been discussed by members of the Snapedom in the past (and likely with far more eloquence than I could manage in this response of my own).

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Along with an excellent article in Vice by Diana Tourjée, in which a case for Snape being trans is convincingly argued. 

Importantly, you’ll notice that while some of these discussions do argue the possibility of Snape being a queer or trans character others may only discuss the way that Snape’s character is queer coded. That is because there is a distinct but subtle difference between: “This character could be queer/lgbtq+” and: “This character has queer/lgbtq+ coding” one which is briefly touched on in the first discussion that I linked you to. However, I would like to elaborate a bit here just what I mean when I refer to Snape as a character with queer coding. As while Rowling has never explicitly stated that she intended to write Snape as lgbtq+ (although there is one interview given by Rowling which could be interpreted as either an unintentional result of trying to symbolically explain Snape’s draw to the dark arts or a vague nod to Snape’s possible bisexuality: "Well, that is Snape's tragedy. ... He wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. He never really understood Lily's aversion; he was so blinded by his attraction to the dark side he thought she would find him impressive if he became a real Death Eater.”) regardless of her intent when she drew upon the existing body of Western literary traditions and tropes for writing antagonists and villains in order to use them as a red-herring for Snape’s character, she also embued his character with some very specific, coded subtext. This is where Death of the Author can be an invaluable tool for literary critics, particularly in branches of literary criticism like queer theory. 

Ultimately, even if Rowling did not intend to write Snape as explicitly queer/lgbtq+ the literary tradition she drew upon in order to present him as a foil for Harry Potter and have her readers question whether he was an ally or a villain has led to Snape being queer coded. Specifically, many of the characteristics of Snape’s character design do fall under the trope known as the “queering of the villain.” Particularly, as @deathdaydungeon, @professormcguire, and other members of the Snapedom have illustrated, Snape’s character not only subverts gender roles (e.g. his Patronus presents as female versus male, Snape symbolically assumes the role of “the mother” in the place of both Lily and later Narcissa when he agrees to protect Harry and Draco, his subject of choice is potions and poisons which are traditionally associated more with women and “witches,” while he seemingly rejects in his first introduction the more phallic practice of “foolish wand-waving,” and indeed Snape is characterized as a defensive-fighter versus offensive, in Arthurian mythology he fulfills the role of Lady of the Lake in the way he chooses to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, Hermione refers to his hand-writing as “kind of girly,” his association with spiders and spinners also carries feminine symbology, etc.) but is often criticized or humiliated for his seeming lack of masculinity (e.g. Petunia mocking his shirt as looking like “a woman’s blouse,” which incidentally was also slang in the U.K. similar to “dandy” to accuse men of being effeminate, the Marauders refer to Snape as “Snivellus” which suggests Snape is either less masculine because he cries or the insult is a mockery of what could pass for a stereotypical/coded Jewish feature, his nose, Remus Lupin quite literally instructs Neville on how to “force” a Boggart!Snape, who incidentally is very literally stepping out of a closet-like wardrobe, into the clothing of an older woman and I quoted force because that is the exact phrase he uses, James and Sirius flipping Snape upside down to expose him again presents as humiliation in the form of emasculation made worse by the arrival and defense of Lily Evans, etc.). 

Overall, the “queering of the villain” is an old trope in literature (although it became more deliberate and prevalent in media during the 1950s-60s); however, in modernity, we still can find it proliferating in many of the Disney villains (e.g. Jafar, Scar, Ursula, etc.), in popular anime and children’s cartoons (e.g. HiM from Powerpuff Girls, James from Pokemon, Frieza, Zarbon, the Ginyu Force, Perfect Cell, basically a good majority of villains from DBZ, Nagato from Fushigi Yuugi, Pegasus from Yu Gi Oh, etc.), and even in modern television series and book adaptations, such as the popular BBC’s Sherlock in the character of Moriarty. Indeed, this article does an excellent job in detailing some of the problematic history of queer coded villains. Although, the most simple summary is that: “Queer-coding is a term used to say that characters were given traits/behaviors to suggest they are not heterosexual/cisgender, without the character being outright confirmed to have a queer identity” (emphasis mine). Notably, TV Tropes also identifies this trope under the classification of the “Sissy Villain” but in queer theory and among queer writers in fandom and academia “queering of the villain” is the common term. This brings me back to Snape and his own queer coding; mainly, because Rowling drew upon Western traditions for presenting a character as a suspected villain she not only wrote Snape as queer (and racially/ethnically) coded but in revealing to the reader that Snape was not, in fact, the villain Harry and the readers were encouraged to believe he was by the narrator she incorporated a long history of problematic traits/tropes into a single character and then proceeded to subvert them by subverting reader-expectation in a way that makes the character of Severus Snape truly fascinating. 

We can certainly debate the authorial intent vs. authorial impact where Snape’s character is concerned. Particularly as we could make a case that the polarizing nature of Snape may well be partly the result of many readers struggling against Rowling subverting literary tropes that are so firmly rooted in our Western storytelling traditions that they cannot entirely abandon the idea that this character who all but had the book thrown at him in terms of all the coding that went into establishing him as a likely villain (e.g. similar to Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, Snape is also coded to be associated with darkness/black colors and to represent danger and volatile/unstable moods, while his class status further characterizes him as an outsider or “foreign other,” and not unlike all those villains of our childhood Disney films which affirmed a more black-and-white philosophy of moral abolutism, such as Scar or Jafar, the ambiguity of Snape’s sexuality coupled with his repeated emasculation signals to the reader that this man should be “evil” and maybe even “predatory,” ergo all the “incel” and friendzone/MRA discourse despite nothing in canon truly supporting those arguments; it seems it may merely be Snape’s “queerness” that signals to some readers that he was predatory or even that “If Harry had been a girl” there would be some kind of danger) is not actually our villain after all. 

Indeed, the very act of having Snape die (ignoring, for the moment, any potential issues of “Bury Your Gays” in a queer analysis of his death) pleading with Harry to “look at him” as he symbolically seems to weep (the man whom Harry’s hyper-masculine father once bullied and mocked as “Snivellus”) memories for Harry to view (this time with his permission) carries some symbolic weight for any queer theory analysis. Snape, formerly portrayed as unfathomable and “secretive,” dies while pleading to be seen by the son of both his first and closest friend and his school-hood bully (a son that Snape also formerly could never see beyond his projection of James) sharing with Harry insight into who he was via his personal memories. For Harry to later go on to declare Snape “the bravest man he ever knew” carries additional weight, as a queer theory analysis makes it possible for us to interpret that as Harry finally recognizing Snape, not as the “queer coded villain” he and the reader expected but rather as the brave queer coded man who was forced to live a double-life in which “no one would ever know the best of him” and who, in his final moments at least, was finally able to be seen as the complex human-being Rowling always intended him to be. 

Rowling humanizing Snape for Harry and the reader and encouraging us to view Snape with empathy opened up the queer coding that she wrote into his character (intentionally or otherwise) in such a way that makes him both a potentially subversive and inspiring character for the lgbtq+ community. Essentially, Snape opens the door for the possibility of reclaiming a tradition of queer coding specific to villains and demonstrating the way those assumptions about queer identity can be subverted. Which is why I was not at all surprised that I was so easily able to find a body of existing discourse surrounding Snape as a queer coded or even as a potentially queer character within the Harry Potter fandom. At least within the Snapedom, there are many lgbtq+ fans of his character that already celebrate the idea of a queer, bi, gay, trans, ace/aro, or queer coded Snape (in fact, as a grey-ace I personally enjoy interpreting Snape through that lens from time-to-time). 

Thank you for your ask @pinkyhatespink and once again I apologize for the amount of time it’s taken me to reply. However, I hope that you’ll find this response answered your question and, if not, that some of the articles and posts from other pro-Snape bloggers I linked you to will be able to do so more effectively. Also, as a final note, although many of the scholarly references and books on queer coding and queering of the villain I would have liked to have sourced are typically behind paywalls, I thought I would list the names of just a few here that I personally enjoyed reading in the past and that may be of further interest should you be able to find access to them.

Fathallah, Judith. “Moriarty’s Ghost: Or the Queer Disruption of the BBC’s Sherlock.” Television & New Media, vol. 16, no. 5, 2014, p. 490-500. 

Huber, Sandra. “Villains, Ghosts, and Roses, or How to Speak With The Dead.” Open Cultural Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, p. 15-25.

Mailer, Norman. “The Homosexual Villain.” 1955. Mind of an Outlaw: Selected Essays, edited by Sipiora Phillip, Random House, 2013, pp. 14–20.

Solis, Nicole Eschen. "Murder Most Queer: The Homicidal Homosexual in the American Theater." Queer Studies in Media & Pop Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, p. 115+. 

Tuhkanen, Mikko. “The Essentialist Villain.” Jan. 2019,  SBN13: 978-1-4384-6966-9

#severus snape #pro snape #snape discourse #snape meta #snapedom #snape community #queer theory

[loavesofoaves]

De Mort of the Author

This is why they say “Don’t meet your heroes.”

Over the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that J.K. Rowling has some very terrible opinions that she only seems to get more and more vocal about. As a result, I’ve unfollowed her social media platforms for quite some time now, but still followed Harry Potter-related ventures like Fantastic Beasts (which…that could be a whole essay in how I feel about those) and her Robert Galbraith mystery series (which I have some opinions about that could also be a whole other essay).

(Oh, I can’t resist…for someone who claims to be all about feminism, J.K. Rowling is not great at writing women. There, I said it.)

Recently, it has come to light that she is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which I disapproved of, but after reading her blog post from today oh God is it so much worse than I thought. Instead of anything resembling any sort of empathy for her trans fans who have been so very deeply hurt by her support of TERF hot takes on social media, she is so terrifyingly committed to justifying her transphobia that it’s sobering. This, this is the hill that the woman who gave us the book series that defined a generation wants to die on? This was the woman who gave us Hermione who always stood up for justice, who gave us a metaphor for standing up to bigotry and eugenics through Dumbledore’s Army and the Order of the Phoenix, who created terrifying villains like Umbridge and Voldemort who were so very real.  How can she not see that she has become the very thing her books preached against—a villain committed to eradicating a certain type of people from the world because they are different? The irony, the fucking irony.

And the cherry on top is she just had to throw ableism into her response as well by throwing in that autistic woman are more likely to transition as if that is something to be concerned about. If you don’t know by now, you should know that I am autistic. This hurts me so fucking much. Part of the experience of being autistic is being constantly gaslit about your ability to think intelligently and rationally because you are different. Telling autistic people that they don’t know what’s good for them because they are autistic and therefore insinuating that their decision-making capabilities and sanity are lacking is ableist. Being trans is valid, regardless of whether it’s a choice or always having felt one was assigned the wrong gender from birth, and trans autistic people are valid and it’s none of your damn business in how they express their gender identities. Again, from the woman who gave us Luna Lovegood, who I have related to deeply, this is so fucking disappointing.

And let’s not even get started that this is what she so selfishly chooses to focus on when Black oppression is at the forefront and we’re in the middle of a global pandemic that is disproportionately affecting Black and Brown people. Oh yeah, and it’s fucking pride month. Woohoo Dumbledore and retroactive representation!

So the good portion of the Harry Potter fandom has established that J.K. Rowling is hurtful and should not have a platform as a public figure. And I think a lot of us who love Harry Potter but are so deeply hurt by its author are wondering, What does this mean? Where do we go from here? Can I possibly still love these books while knowing the person who wrote them is deeply problematic?

I think there is a lot of pressure right now to divorce oneself from Harry Potter entirely, as if the series will taint everyone who touches it because of the author. And if removing it from your life will make you feel better and in a better place mentally, then let go. But I always get wary when people police what media others consume, because, let’s be real, mostly everything we liked from our childhoods is problematic in some way and even though it has gotten so, so much better in the books and shows and movies coming out now, who knows what we’ll be saying about stuff Steven Universe and She-Ra in twenty years? As The Good Place would put it, there is no such thing as completely ethical consumption.

I was an English major. Part of being an English major is reading a lot of books by old dead white dudes who had offensive beliefs. Let’s look at William Shakespeare. He created hundreds of words we still use today and wrote plays that have become ingrained in our culture. His works also contained sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic ideas. And people have reclaimed these plays, challenged these ideas—supported the work while also presenting it in a satirical and critical eye. A performance I saw recently of Much Ado About Nothing with an all-Black cast comes to mind (it’s no longer streaming for free on PBS, but I highly recommend checking it out at some point: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/much-ado-about-nothing-full-episode/10194/).

So yes, death of the author. The author had intent, sure, but once that work enters out into the world, it’s in the hands of the people, baby. And while, no, we will never look at Harry Potter the same way and will always read it with a more critical eye, I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. In a post-J.K. Rowling world (which will happen completely at some point anyways), it will be interesting to see the new content the fandom generates, the new perspectives. Harry Potter fans are creative, brilliant, diverse, and resilient; they’ve brought us podcasts and porn and puppets. And that is the content that I am excited about, because it belongs to the fans, and the fans say TRANS RIGHTS loud and clear.

So personally, I will not be supporting any new work from J.K. Rowling, which, without making this a whole other essay, has spiraled down the tubes since the Harry Potter series ended. She wrote a book that defined my childhood, for which I will always be grateful, but it was time for her to say goodbye years ago and she is in grave need of time away to reflect on how her actions and writing affect others. I hope she realizes how deeply hurtful she has been one day, but I won’t hold my breath.

But I can’t just pretend I hate Harry Potter now purely for performative virtue signaling, and I think many others are in the same boat. If you are queer and/or autistic and Harry Potter was there for you when you needed it, don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t read it and reflect on it fondly. Do what’s best for your mental health, and as I said earlier, if you need to distance yourself from Harry Potter to heal, that’s also valid. While the series is far from perfect as time continues to reveal to us, it still represents characters and ideas that I still see as good and validating of my own personal identity, and I know many other fans feel the same way. It will never be the same, and let’s not let that be a bad thing.

#harry potter #j.k. rowling #fandom #trans rights #autism #CW: transphobia #CW: ableism #personal