I admire her work and have been a fan for decades. That being said, her opinions on this issue seem to deny science, so speaking out using her celebrity, seems desperate and ignorant.
To me, as a fan, and a live and let live type, I won’t support her radical opinions with my money. Or applaud her award. God doesn’t make mistakes.

This question is rather confusing.

@Demosthenes: “So what I want to ask is: even if you disagree strongly with the opinions of someone like Rowling, do you think that a strong negative “cancel-oriented” reaction to her opinions makes a hero out of them?”

“Cancel-oriented” reactions, as framed by the right, don’t really exist. This concept has been created in order to resist pushback by framing the privileged as the victims and using this to gain sympathy and to attempt to paint them as a hero.

When people talk of “cancel culture”, they are attempting to describe pushback to public speech as “silencing” or a violation. The subsequent “free speech” framing is a disingenuous attempt at creating safe spaces for certain people and political speech. It’s not “free speech” that they are calling for – it’s guaranteed platforming and acceptance of political opinion.

Rowling is a transphobic asshole. Saying so doesn’t mean she’s suddenly a victim. It doesn’t matter if it’s just me saying it or millions. She is not the victim, doesn’t deserve a safe space beyond the rest of us, and happens to have a voice and power that is far beyond most people in the world. I have no idea if certain media or her fans have succeeded in making her a victim/hero by employing the popular “cancel culture” mythology.

I think if alphabet people can voice opinions about lifestyle, whether in support or opposition, then everyone should be free to do the same.

The right to express preferences should either be allowed for everyone, or no one.

How many times have we seen “worst dressed” bits publicly aired? How dare they speak against someone’s wardrobe choice?!

I see it as a long-standing trend, and no reason to stifle one but no others.

@Patty_Melt Well that’s the thing, though, this isn’t really an issue of rights. Just because people disagree with her and call her out doesn’t mean she’s being denied her rights or isn’t free to say what she wants. She’s free to voice her opinions, and anyone else is free to disagree with her and call her out. I’m just saying that reacting so strongly to her views helps make her seem more sympathetic and makes her into a martyr. Which seems like the opposite of what people who disagree with her would want.

@_____ I’m simply asking from a practical point of view: if you don’t want views like hers to be amplified or someone like her to be sympathized with because of those views, then the army of attack against her isn’t a way to prevent that—it brings attention to her and (in some people’s minds) casts her as the victim of a mob mentality. I know it’s not actually an issue of free speech. But she wouldn’t be getting all this positive recognition if not for the strong backlash.

@Demosthenes A spokesperson for the BBC said “offense is the price of free speech”.

If someone at the BBC wrote that a verb is the price of a noun then they would be out the door in a fairy tale ending.

“In a blog about the transgender debate, she offended many people. Offence is the price of free speech. Those offended felt she was questioning their identity and even attacking their human rights, which they argue is a form of discrimination or hate speech.”

And the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

@doyendroll I think the quote was “translated” for Americans. :P

@Demosthenes: “I’m simply asking from a practical point of view:”

Yeah, I get that. However…

@Demosthenes: “if you don’t want views like hers to be amplified or someone like her to be sympathized with because of those views, then the army of attack against her isn’t a way to prevent that—it brings attention to her and (in some people’s minds) casts her as the victim of a mob mentality.”

But this ^ framing is only possible if prominent voices are successful at painting speech as “mob mentality” and the speech conforms with popular opinion. If I happen to think JK Rowling is correct than I will be sympathetic with the concept of Rowling-as-victim.

The problem I have with the question is that it is doing 2 things:

1. There is an objective answer to this that would likely some real study and analysis. It would be an analysis of public reaction to public voices getting pushback, etc.

2. How an actual answer to #1 would play out would be a mystery. It implies that people act individually with large-scale strategic goals in mind at all times. And there is also an implicit acceptance of the right-wing “cancel-culture” framing and media propaganda in any approach that requires people to resist pushing back against privilege in order to obtain some kind of long-term goal.

Well sure I don’t know it would play out, that’s why I ask the question. :) I have some long-term goals, one of them is the normalization of homosexuality. I absolutely have a “gay agenda” in that sense. So when gay people go after a baker who won’t make a cake for a same-sex marriage and the baker comes off as a sympathetic victim of “LGBT bullies” then that hurts my goal and sets it back.

I don’t think pointing out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes (in this case Rowling, or the anti-gay cake baker) turns her, or the baker, into a sympathetic martyrs, it simply calls them out out for their ignorance and/or discriminatory practices. Just because other ignorant or discriminatory people go along with it, doesn’t make her, or them, any more sympathetic, it just shines a bright, ugly light on them. Sometimes that needs to happen to make progress.

@Demosthenes – So how do you react to someone who voices anti-homosexual crap? Do you fear that pushing back might backfire? And if so, does that mean that there is no pushback?

@_____ I fear it sometimes, yes, but that doesn’t mean I would never push back. I support pushback when I think it will change someone or change their practices (such as the boycott of Chick-fil-a when they were donating to groups that supported conversion therapy; the pushback caused them to stop donating to those organizations). I know we can’t know if it will backfire or be successful. One just has to weigh every case individually. It also depends on the kind of pushback. I love proving homophobes wrong and revealing their prejudices and bad arguments. I don’t like saying they should lose their job and be run out of town or recruit people to harass them. That’s the kind of pushback that’s more likely to backfire.

The bottom line is that as an issue the “controversy” is a big yawn. Ten years ago, this might have been frontline combat, but by now—she’s just another richer than God old woman stamped with bygone ideas that even her kids probably find antiquated. Is there any evidence at all that her position on the matter has in any way affected her bottom line? I wouldn’t know, and actually don’t much care. It might well be a hindrance to any future political ambitions on her part, but otherwise, I would expect her to continue raking in the pounds regardless. At least her fantasy stuff is free (I guess) from homophobia.

In terms of money / increased or decreased earnings…it seems it remains to be seen if the negative reaction on her opinion is a good thing or not for her.

I think that it is a negative stunt to get free advertisement, regardless of the comments.
Negative advertisement spreads faster in our present times.
It gets the Publics attention.

@Desmosthenes If you want to win the homosexuality argument, you must disprove it biblically as a sin or unnatural choice.
Jk’s sudden religious conversion was the turning point, as all her fans know from her questioning of theology in her writings.
As an out of the box Christian, and a LGBTQ supporter, I’m right there with you on this issue.

The reaction to things said that we don’t like has been going on for quite some time. People like Anita Bryant and Jimmy the Greek were completely destroyed after making objectionable comments but it was fairly rare. Now we are seeing a dramatic uptick in the frequency and the intensity of these reactions.causing a backlash to the backlash. Many of these boycott reactions are seen as political reactions (whether they are or not) and simply a way to punish those we disagree with. If you don’t like what someone says, get them fired or destroyed. Much of this doesn’t even get to any real analysis but rather simply a ‘here we go again’ reaction.

So yes I think we are over reacting and causing a sympathy reaction to what is perceived as bullying. You can overdo anything and the ‘Cancel Culture’ is over doing it.

^ Good thing “cancel culture” doesn’t exist (as described by the right)!

So boycott me.

^ See? It’s a figment of the right’s imagination. The right loves to be the victim.