Who's Gonna Shield the Kiddos from J.K.R?'s Rubbish!
- by S gone Rogue
- 4 Min
Critique: Who safeguards the children from the influence of J.K. Rowling's views? - Defending Minors against J.K. Rowling's Influence: A Look at the Concerns
Bloody hell! Three damn cute little Spellslingers have been chosen for the fresh HBO series, "Harry Potter"! These pint-sized prodigies were picked from more than 30,000 minions aged between nine and eleven from the entirety of Britannia.
But how the frack's this casting biz work? Is J.K.R (a.k.a. executive producer on the new series) sit in a stuffy auditorium, sifting through shaky selfies from the school drama club at Stratford-upon-Avon's King Edward VI School, and all of a sudden going "By Jove! That young Julian in the corner'd be sensational as Hermione! What say ye, Headmaster Dumbledore? Ain't that Julian? Bloody cross-dresser! The bloody rot of these times we're livin' in! Now even the wee ones can select their own gender!"
Anyway. After the grand casting ceremony, three tykes have gotten the gig. Young Dominic McLaughlin'll flaunt Harry Potter's gown, Arabella Stanton'll embody Hermione Granger, and Alastair Stout'll shoulder Ron Weasley's role. Thus, these newcomers'll supplant Daniel Radcliffe (35), Emma Watson (35), and Rupert Grint (36).
Obviously, the first thought that springs to mind is, why the flaming heck do we sorely need another Potter series? Why can't J.K.R simply leave her masterpiece alone? Why not be contended with a flock of 600 million books sold globally, a predicted fortune of approximately 1.1 billion dollars, and her own operetta sit alongside Hamburg's revolting mustard museum?
But mostly, who'll safeguard the helpless child actors from J.K.R? Cause what's in store for 'em ain't much of a laugh. Their predecessors ken that all too well. The moment these three dared to form their own opinion about J.K.R's infamous transphobia, the cursed spell of the High Priestess befell 'em.
Rowling's reaction to the criticism of the three regarding her now infamous transphobic stance is just downright pathetic. Since 2020, the bestselling author has repeatedly expressed her critical views on the transgender issue, insisting biological gender is not changeable. Man is man, woman is woman, no debate!
Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint have repeatedly distanced themselves from Rowling. Radcliffe wrote, "Trans women are women." He emphasized that such statements wound the dignity of those impacted. In an open letter, he penned, "It's manifestly clear that we must do more to support transgender and nonbinary people. We shouldn't declare their identities invalid and cause further suffering."
Emma Watson echoed this on X, "Trans people are who they say they are, and they deserve to live their lives without constant questioning or being told they're not who they say they are. I want my trans followers to know that I and many others around the world see you, respect you, and love you for who you are."
Rupert Grint also showed solidarity, stating, "I side firmly with the trans community and join the sentiments of my colleagues. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. We all should have the right to live unjudged and with love."
Subsequently, Rowling accused the actors of appeasing a movement that undermines women's rights. She declared that she wouldn't forgive Radcliffe and Watson for their actions, as they leveraged their fame to celebrate the transition of minors, thereby endangering vulnerable women. Whatever the peril may be, it's not clear.
On social media, Rowling mocked the now-grown Potter starlets, chucking 'em to her over 14 million followers on "X" for ridicule. In the boorish times of the platform under Elon Musk, this ain't no joke.
Lastly, J.K.R celebrated a British court ruling that categorically declared trans women do not qualify as women. After the announcement, she posted a photo of herself looking rather pleased with a stogie on "X." Elon Musk and Donald Trump liked the post. Gorgeous company, Mrs. Rowling!
Harry Potter: The Voldemort-ization of J.K.R
One wonders exactly when the Voldemort-ization of Rowling began. Each author harbors within themselves all the characters they spawned into their works. With Voldemort, Rowling tried to exorcise her darkest demons. Sadly, this exorcism wasn't entirely successful. Some shreds of the arch-villain may still linger. For Rowling's transphobic fixation shares the same biologism that she so wickedly satirized in Voldemort years ago. While Voldemort only accepts "pure-blood" wizards and casts off all "mud-blood" magicians, J.K.R only accepts women who were born as such. All others she deems abhorrent and ostracizes. What are these women to her? Mud-bloods?
Much like Voldemort, J.K.R demands unwavering loyalty. Those who refuse her must suffer her curse. In the public criticism of the three Potter stars, Rowling sees disloyalty of her values. That takes some friggin' gall!
J.K.R asserts that women aren't safe if trans women use women's washrooms or dressing rooms. This is provably nonsense. Instead, one should fret about impressionable child stars who've fallen into the now unfortunately very dodgy sphere of influence of the successful but misanthropic author. And one should ponder whether one still wants to expose one's children to such an author.
I'm not going to be able to watch this new Harry Potter series, given my discomfort with J.K.R's transphobic views and her controversial behavior towards celebrities who have expressed dissent. The entertainment industry's embrace of pop-culture figures who espouse such divisive opinions is concerning, especially when it comes to the well-being of child actors.
