Joanne's agent calls Lily's statement a defamatory allegation. Okay, file the defamation suit. I would love to see how this shakes out in court.

To fascists, fascism is free speech and other free speech is fascism. To everyone else, a spade is a fuckin spade.

Take her wealth, use it to fund gender affirming care for her victims, and put her in prison until she's willing to teach writing at a free community college

She would say that, but doesn't change the fact that she absolutely is.

trans genocide funder lies about funding trans genocide

Is she going to stop doing it though?

I'm with Wachowski on this, up until she starts going after the fans. Let the billionaires fight, but leave people alone who just want to enjoy things in a fucked-up world. If you grew up reading about witches and wizards, you're not complicit in what the author supports. You just grew up reading magical fantasy, and that's fine.

That said, I hope JKR takes these words to heart and makes her claim true. I don't think she will, I think she's just trying to fend off negative PR while willfully doing the things that generates negative PR and for good reason, but I'm glad she's not leaning into the hate like some others have done. Maybe she'll realise she's hurting people and shift her focus? Probably not, though.

Also, I love that she's the "Sense8 creator" and not the "Matrix creator". The first Matrix movie was very good (the others, not so much), but Sense8 was also very good, and also relevant as it featured not only a trans woman playing a trans woman, but it dug deep into the concept of human compassion by empathically linking a set number of people. Interestingly, Japan had a very similar story that came out around the same time, Kiznaiver. I used to think Sense8 was "the Netflix adaptation", but it came out about a year before. I don't think either one influenced the other, but they share the same concept. In Sense8, it's all people who were born at the exact same time as some global event (I don't recall what exactly). In Kiznaiver, it's a technology that links 7-9 people who come in contact with it, as an experiment. But the idea of dividing pain/suffering equally between the people, and people leaning into the strengths of others, and ultimately making you wonder what if everyone was connected this way, are key themes of both. So, super relevant here in that JKR is demonising and weaponising her wealth against people who are different from her; rather than trying to bring others up, she is trying to push others down. And more than just trying; she's very successful at it.

The Wachowskis also made Cloud Atlas, which is an absolute clusterfuck of a film, but I love it. I just wish they retained the format of the book. So, in short, the book told seven stories that were connected by kindness and art (different art) that survived from generation to generation, inspired by the art which came before. All of these segments are at least 100 years apart, I think. One is set in the far future, and another is set in a post-apocalyptic world. One is not set in our time, but in the 1970s. The other four are what you would call "historic" times. In the book, it was the first half of the first six told chronologically, the entire seventh, then the second half of the first six told in reverse chronological order... thus, 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A-B, 6B, 5B, 4B, 3B, 2B, 1B. The movie just... throws all the scenes in a blender and they come out in what seems like a random order. It still works, but it's hard to follow, and at 3 hours long, it's difficult to go back and watch it again, but I've done so a few times.

I'm down for whatever they make. I also won't apologise for liking the Harry Potter stuff. I'm not interested in the new series. I liked the first four books, and Half-Blood Prince. I liked the first four movies, full stop. I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies; none of them were good. I haven't been too interested in the games, but I did play Hogwarts Legacy. It was made without JKR's approval, and features a trans character. In fact, you can be trans in the game and literally no one but JKR has an issue with it. There are several things you can do to make your gender appear one way or another. Anyone can use any hair, any body build (basically breasts and hourglass figure or no breasts and parallel figure), so you can totally mix it up, be as non-binary as you want, and then you get the final word on whether you're a "witch" or a "wizard" and everybody respects your pronouns, full stop. The game is also constantly on sale on consoles and has been frequently given away on PC. They don't want JKR making money on it. And the broom flying is awesome, shame they didn't put Quidditch in it. But you can explore the whole castle, and it's set 100 years before Tom Riddle (or Albus Dumbledore, I forgot) was born.

Enjoy what you like. But don't go out of your way to support trans genocide.

I understand that this is a serious issue, and it's not my intention to minimize that, but although this might seem unnecessarily pedantic, isn't part of the definition of genocide that it's targeted against some sort of cultural heritage or ethnicity? At least the root geno seems to imply as much.

Even if the meaning of the word has evolved to encompass erasure of any culture, including transnational subcultures, I wonder if this is a hang-up for some of the people who refuse to call it a genocide. Maybe calling it something like "gendercide" would get through to more people?

I mean I know there are a lot of people who won't acknowledge a genocide until after it happens, and in many cases not until decades after (if even then). And there are also unfortunately many who are just plain old malicious and spiteful and won't call it anything with a negative connotation that would validate people's concerns about the issue.

But I don't think those people encompass the entirety of folks who aren't willing to call it a genocide. Some people might simply think it sounds hyperbolic or imprecise. And to better get through to those people specifically, mightn't it be beneficial to choose a word that they're more willing to accept, albeit without lessening the severity of what it refers to?

Calling it "gendercide" still implies that people are dying, potentially en masse, and it still communicates that the hostility is directed at a specific demographic of people. It just clarifies that the demographic being targeted isn't an ethnic group, but rather a gender group.

Of course, there might be a better word for it than that. It's just that, unfortunately, people tend to get desensitized to words that they hear a lot, especially if they consider those words hyperbolic (whether they are in truth or not). So I feel like calling it genocide, even if that's an accurate description, ends up shutting down people's willingness to engage in the conversation; unless those people are already of the variety who don't need to be convinced. So in effect it can be kinda like preaching to the choir.

This is just a pragmatic approach. There might be other valid approaches. For instance, "Calling it genocide because that's what it is" seems sort of deontological. "This is the truth, so it's what we'll say" versus "Softening the truth a little might make it more persuasive to people who are on the fence."

Personally, I think whatever results in the least harm/suffering/death/oppression is the best approach. So call me utilitarian if you must, but I'll always caution against alienating potential allies even if that means being a little more circumspect at times.

Omg sorry but I read that as "Sense8 -creator, JK Rowling." And I almost had a heart attack. Nice to see the sense8 creator is bashing the pos