>>36604>idc that you have an agenda<Oh noes someone isn't assblasted about this social media spectacle I'm mad about? They MUST have an agenda!Go outside, touch grass.
>her career as a TERF HAHAHAHAHAHA what the actual fuck are you even on about? Do you even know the meaning of TERF to begin with (or career for that matter)? Rowling isn't even a radical feminist by any standard, being a fairly normal "women's rights" type feminist. As for "trans exclusionary" that also doesn't apply unless you wish to contradict biological fact. Rowling's feminism is typical liberalism, but it doesn't make these claims of hatespeech any more legitimate. In layman's terms, just because Rowling is a cunt in person doesn't make equally cunty people any better. The only book in her career relevant to what you claim is a recent one about the Inky Heart or whatever it's called, and has nothing to do with Harry Potter.
>"I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so."She is correct in this statement and as a biological woman has every right to say as much. Having Gender Dysphoria, even if it is from birth, is certainly not the same experience as being born and living as a woman from birth. Admission of fact is not transphobic, and only terminally online idiots looking to be angry about something, which is precisely who Rowling is replying to.
In fact Eddie Izzard, a GenderFluid comedian found no problem with Rowling's comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ And Rowling herself defended trans people against hate speech and being shouted down for discussing facts within the community.
>its connection to the books which very much have that mumsnet sort of ideology The books were written in the 90s, were a product of the 90s and a reflection of Rowling's life in the 90s as (at the time) a poor mother raising children during a period of social unrest and the Troubles. No inherent ideology is really pushed in the story until far later in the books (when the main cast are adolescent's and politics are more at play) and at best it can be described as nebulous liberal idealism with a stiff dislike of government bureaucracy, fascism and middle-class petite bourgs - as seen in the bumbling and harmful incompetence of the Ministry of Magic, the villainous depiction of Voldemorrt, and the abusive, labour-hating depiction of the Dursley's - than anything else.
As for Mumsnet, you can't just take something and call it "an ideology", that's not what an ideology is FFS. Even if it were, again it has little relevance given the story involves an orphan main character with abusive adoptive relatives that spends most of the time we see, on a magical adventure quest with little involvement from parents or parentage except in passing. Moreover I re-emphasize, these are books from the 90s/early 2000s before Rowling had even entertained online activism.
>>36605 > considering how the oppressed fantasy races are depicted or the particular naming conventions that Rowling has 1) read the thread, this has been addressed before
2) Again irrellevant to your statement.