@brian_: It's been funny watching this thread (and others elsewhere tbf) where the people minimizing the effects of the boycott or worse, minimizing Rowling's views, never actually engage with the trans people in the discussion who are essentially saying "I can't stop you from buying, but I'll think less of you for these reasons". Like, say it with your fucking chest if you think trans people are making too big a deal of this, or that their opinion is not going to sway you.

@navster15: But why do that when you can just ignore their actual arguments and instead post a video by some random youtuber who also completely ignores the actual arguments? Better to show up, say you haven't learned anything about what's going on and no one can make you, and belittle everyone who is actually impacted by JK's actions.

@thatpinguino: @navster15: I'd like to think that not everyone minimizing efforts is doing so in a consciously bigoted manner. Some, very clearly, are. But I also think some of it is subconscious, and just comes from how people are trained to have arguments, and I hope that that is something that can be changed.

I very intentionally avoided this thread for the past couple of days, despite being active in it for years. I just didn't have the stomach for it.

I'm angry. I'm exhausted. I, and every trans person probably, want to shout "I TOLD YOU SO" in regards to JKR's bigotry and the discourse around this game. @justin258's point was great -- you literally have to look at her Twitter feed for two seconds to see how bad it's gotten. And more disturbingly, her views aren't limited to Twitter -- plenty of people have bad tweets -- but she uses her financial and social capital to spread these views and lobby for them in the real world and make every trans person's life worse. But I realize, it doesn't matter, because there is a majority of people who will just continue to bury their heads in the sand and not care, while (infuriatingly) never wanting to admit just that. The last few days have revealed that most people care more about a toy, a mild creature comfort, than the lives of millions. Forgive me if that makes me a little salty.

Anyway, all of this has been discussed to death, and I have very little new to add. Just wanted to chime in firmly in support of every other trans person in this thread going through it right now.

The sad truth is, many people who claim to be outrage by J.K Rowlings stance on trans people are right now playing this game. So is the hypocrisy of the human beings. And I don't claim to be special. Even though I was never a big Harry Potter fan, I do like a well made video game, so I might check it out someday. Just not at full price.

So, I'm guessing this is directly addressing me since I'm the one who posted the video. Even though I didn't make the video, I do agree with the sentiment being expressed therein, which, in this forum, seems to have been ignored for the sake of vilifying potential customers and fans of an extremely popular media franchise that they like, because those people may not have the same strong feelings on the issue, but instead just want to play a game that they think looks fun and cool. I have not ignored any arguments on the matter as the quoted above purports, but I also don't feel the need to engage in arguments that will just be ignored by those who simply want to argue. I do not decry anyones opinion, want, or need to personally boycott, or even form boycott groups for greater impact towards their goal of trying to cancel an author who has essentially already been cancelled in the court of public opinion. However, I do not agree with nor tolerate attacks or villainization on people who are not directly attacking a particular group, which has been what has happened since the discourse over this game began. Like the creator of the video, I am black, and if I advocated the types of actions I have seen perpetrated online in response to "potential customers" of this game, towards people who indirectly have supported companies and creators who have spoken or effectuated actual violence on my people, a lot of you choosing to die on this hill, would die on a hill. I have seen support for posts by people in online communities who have said, "I hope that anyone who plays or plans to play Hogwarts legacy unfollows me and dies". This is not the way to gain or foster support for your cause, and actually only serves to galvanize people into opposition of your cause on principle, based on those actions. By all means, have and express your opinions, create your protests and boycotts, but calling out, attacking or doxxing people who may not agree with you, who are not directly harming you, is where the line should be drawn.

@mistersims: Using internet mob violence at this point is a weaksauce defense for this. Sadly, with the internet in 2023, everyone gets attacked for something or another. And it sucks regardless of who is in the crosshairs. You want people to disown the mob attacking Girlfriend Reviews or whatever? It's verboten, no one here condones that shit.

Being nice to get people on your side is also a losing game. It's respectability politics, and the goalposts of what counts as "nice" will always be moved. People should be made uncomfortable for buying a stupid video game that is funding rabid transphobia. No one owes you comfort, and honestly if someone is really into Hogwarts, that's not going to stop them from buying the game.

Finally, I watched the video you posted. There is nothing in there but whataboutism and strawman arguments. No one is saying that people are rabidly transphobic for buying a video game, what they are saying is that they don't care about trans people. And honestly, that's not an inaccurate description for people who hear trans folks saying "maybe don't buy this game out of the thousands you can possibly purchase" and then shrugging their shoulders and doing the opposite. That could be because they are ignorant and don't know trans people personally, but that still means they don't care about trans people. The rest of the video is a whole bunch of "but you live in a society" fallacy. Like, I care about this game because I care about video games. If people in my social or internet circles talk about buying a Harry Potter LEGO set or going to Universal Studios, I would let them know that they are supporting a transphobe. We all have blindspots, and I'm certainly not perfect. But when a marginalized group is asking me to consider my consumption choices of specific products and how they harm people, I'd certainly listen.

I would also say, if "internet mobs are bad" is the line here -- funny how we talk far less about the nonstop harrassment openly trans people have been receiving online for the past... oh, ever. In both the context of Hogwarts Legacy and in general -- one of these "mobs" is bigger and more prevalent than the other. In the case of Girlfriend Reviews, people who combed through the livechat saw no harrassment, but people saying in the most mild tone possible, "please don't play this." And yet even this polite appeal is portrayed as bullying.

@lapsariangiraff: Oh wow, thanks for bringing this up. I bought the harassment argument hook, line, and sinker. My bad!

@navster15: Don't feel bad! I bought it at first too, since it's the only angle being brought up by most gaming outlets.

In case it needs to be said, of course I denounce anyone who tells someone else to kill themselves over this. But again -- Jessie Earl, the lovely author of the piece on JKR at Gamespot, has been sent dozens of messages saying "avada kedavra" (the fact that terminology from a universe as tacky as HP's is being used to unironically send death threats is simultaneously cringeworthy and disturbing, but that's 2023 for ya).

@mistersims: I think everyone can agree on "mob violence and death threats are bad. Also don't dox people," but giving some crap to people who are buying this game without knowledge of what JK is doing seems like completely normal political action. Marches block the road and piss people off. Picket lines shut down companies and piss people off. Pissing people off so that they think about what they're choosing and choose something else is the mechanism that drives the change. If you aren't annoying someone via your protest, you aren't going to change anything.

I also would argue JK clearly isn't canceled in any meaningful way. She's still out there diverting her funds and advocating for laws to make lives for trans people worse. Being perceived as bad by very online people doesn't actually say much about what the average Harry Potter fan knows about her current stances. That's part of why you protest this game. You make a stink big enough that maybe the controversy gets covered by a main stream news channel and some new people know that buying more Harry Potter shit is putting money in the pocket of a person they wouldn't want to support.

@thatpinguino: Bingo. The inconvenience is the point. I've seen people say that the boycott was a bad tactic because there was no chance the game was going to sell poorly, or that we brought more attention to it, but honestly? I'm okay bringing more attention to it in a way that tars its public perception. If normal, not terminally-online Harry Potter fans have to consider this for even a second more than they usually do, this is a win. The game will fade, but that icky feeling will persist, and maybe make more of a difference in the future.

The mob violence defense reads to me awfully close to the "Antifa burned down buildings" kind of garbage that the right wingers looooove.

I feel like I've listened to trans people's arguments, and bottom line is that I'm just not convinced by what at best appears to be a slippery slope argument about how this wizard game for children is going to lead to another holocaust. I'm quite confident that trans people will not perceive any change to their daily lives on account of this game, and if the discourse online offends them then maybe the onus should be on them to not actively seek out such content.

I also find there to be some irony in that some (I generally make a point about talking about "some" trans people because I don't want to lump them into a single homogenous hive mind) are hurt by something that other people do in the privacy of their own homes, and therefore they want it forbidden.

I do not mean to trivialize the issues trans people face on a daily basis, I can't imagine it but I can bet that it isn't easy. But to me that is all the more reason to wonder why they let Rowling live rent-free in their heads and spend their precious time fighting Harry fucking Potter online. You can again maybe see some parallels to how extreme conservatives are mad about Mr Potato Head and M&M characters.

You are not going to get her to change her mind, she lives off the controversy that you help create, and I can assure you that she isn't going to run out of money to keep doing what she's doing. Maybe it's time to take a loss on this one and move on to something else.

@apewins: Hey, at least you said that you're not convinced by the arguments, which is more than most have said here. But I'll just say that JK Rowling does material harm trans people. Case-in-point, her Wikipedia shows the following:

"In June 2020, theEquality Actwas blocked in theU.S. Senate.RepublicansenatorJames Lankfordcited Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning for opposing the bill."

"In a 2021 essay forNew Statesman, former British prime ministerTony Blairexpressed his belief thatLabourwould never regain power if it criticised Rowling's views on trans people."

"In October 2022, Rowling voiced opposition to theScottish Gender Recognition Reform Billaimed at expanding the rights of transgender people, callingNicola Sturgeona "destroyer of women's rights"."

(SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling)

Now maybe you think that the couple of dollars from your purchase of Hogwarts Legacy is not going to make much difference in how Rowling harms trans people, but to say she has done no material harm to trans folks is just plain ignorant.

This isn't a case of "rent free" Potato Head bullshit. This is people drawing a direct line between supporting this person and the harm she inflicts on a marginalized community. And hey, maybe that doesn't convince you, fine. But characterizing trans people and allies as obsessing over a silly children's book is not giving the other side a fair reading.

@apewins: Can you consider a moment that a tangible definite “win” isn’t necessarily a goal and maybe a lot of people want to be listened to and told that people have their back?

Instead you say that you listened but found it wanting, which I dunno that seems cruel.

That and 'I don't mean to trivialize, but I'm going to directly relate your concerns to manufactured culture war propaganda".

@apewins: It's not an issue of "leads" to another holocaust. We're already in it. Just today, South Dakota passed a bill banning gender affirming care for transgender youth, and it's the second state to do so in the US. Genspect, an anti-trans lobbyist group, openly advocates for hormones and all gender affirming care to be banned up to the age of 25. Donald Trump has started his presidential campaign on the promise to ban ALL transitioning and even "gender ideology" as a subject. (Edit: Even more context -- the UK has risked Scotland getting even more antsy for independence just to strike down a Gender Recognition Certificate bill passed in Scotland. In 2023 alone, AKA for about a month, 287 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in the US. 287! Most of which apply to trans people or draconian anti-drag laws [which by the by would take us back to the era of women's fashion being policed for gender nonconformity. you know -- the early 20th century.] Many of the sponsors of these bills are citing JK Rowling as someone who brought this to their attention. Anti-trans activism isn't a large swath of people, it's more a small travelling circus that goes from state to state with the same pseudo-scientific witnesses over and over. And guess who is publicly buddy-buddy with most of them! And donates to them! Do I even need to say?)

The difference between this and conservative culture wars, in your insulting comparison, is that the M & M isn't actually more woke. There is no tether to reality. Ben Shapiro gets mad that people don't like AI chatbots using slurs. Every conservative headline makes a mountain out of a molehill. Whereas here, trans people are calling a spade a spade (ramp up to trans genocide, JK Rowling is the literal figurehead of that movement for many transphobes, she donates her considerable money and platform to ramp up this genocide even faster) and people like yourself are uncomfortable with that. I don't dedicate more time to JKR than I have to, but it's kind of hard not to when I work in games and the biggest game this month is a Harry Potter game, or the series itself is still incredibly popular. Every time I see someone with Harry Potter merch, I have to wonder, "is this person negligent? or do they actively want me dead?" Somehow I doubt you'd be so callous if you were to encounter this feeling yourself.

(And before you call that hyperbolic, let me note that several anti-trans activist groups have literally paid for "I LOVE JK ROWLING" billboards to be put up just to dogwhistle this bigotry and make trans people in those neighborhoods feel unsafe.)

@apewins: "Maybe it's time to take a loss on this one and move on to something else."

Fucking gross, dude. Callous and pretty disgusting to tell a group of people, myself included, to just take the L when our lives are on the line and people are debating more about whether or not it's okay to play a game than they are pushing back against genuinely harmful and dehumanizing legislature that's creeping through the US, the UK, and Canada. Like I get it, to you it's just a game, but it's a symbol, too, one that some of the worst people out there are using to validate or show their intolerant views regarding our existence. To just suggest a group of people take the L is at best lazy and at worst pretty negligent.

Please everyone, if you think it is unethical to play this game: don’t play it. If you think it is fine, play it. Stop trying to justify it just because you feel guilty. Just play the game. Michael Jackson was a piece of shit yet we all listen. Two things can exist simultaneously. You can not agree with her and like the fiction. That’s ok, playing the game is not an endorsement of her. Stop posturing and just admit you want to play it. Play it and enjoy it. It doesn’t mean you endorse her. Everyone that says they will boycott this game is probably going to play it anyway, they just won’t admit to it because they want the social clout. I’m just saying you can be accepting of the movement ( like I am) and just play the game. Sorry if I sound angry, I’m just sick of all the posturing. Love your life in the real world, not gaining the online clout. You guys are all good people.

@tradee9691: Wow, you're accepting of the movement. How gracious. Almost covers the fact you just called everyone involved a clout shark. How rude, dude. I know you won't believe me when I say this -- because you've already decided that, no matter what people say here, they're "posturing" -- but I won't buy it. I gave away my books years ago, not because of any material harm (there is none,) but because of how much it hurt to even look at them. Haven't seen the movies in ages. It's not clout. It's principle.

I'm glad it's a choice for you, genuinely. Enjoy the game. But don't project your personal feelings on the matter onto everyone else.

(If it was any other boycott, like that ridiculous Modern Warfare 2 PC boycott back in 2009, I'd agree with you. Gamers tend to boycott over the silliest shit and never back it up. Also, you can't honestly be still making the same tired Michael Jackson comparison we've heard for years, can you? He's dead and can no longer harm anyone, JK Rowling isn't. It's not difficult.)

@lapsariangiraff:

I respect your decision to not play it and I applaud you. I probably worded everything incorrectly but I just think we should all respect someone that doesn’t play it for their reasons but also not judge if someone wants to play it in spite of a moral dilemma. Full disclosure, I have no interest in the game or the source material. I was just trying to put my self in the shoes of someone that did like it and disagree with the author.

@lapsariangiraff: also, please don’t be so dismissive that I said “the movement.” People don’t always say the exact verbiage that you would like but know I mean that I support trans rights, and all right associated with the community. Belittling the grammar is not ok. I love and support all people.

@lapsariangiraff: also, Michael Jackson f$&@($ kids. She can only spread shitty beliefs. She is basically known as an idiot yelling at the kids on her lawn. That is pretty disgusting to say since Jackson is dead he is fine. That is hella gross dude.

@tradee9691: I understand that post was pretty harsh. I actually don't take any issue with calling it "the movement" or anything like that. I took no issue with your grammar or the exact word you used -- I think this is a common and popular misconception about trans people, that we're unreasonably picky. In fact, I agree that everyone who wants to play the game should do so. (The difference is that I think trans people have the right to judge anyone who buys this knowing the context. We're 1% of the population, and it'll never go further than a stink-eye interpersonally. Some people buying the game, however, treat this incredibly minor inconvenience as a cross to die upon, and complain that they're still a good person and a good ally, and that it's unfair to be thought less of. That, I have a big problem with, but that's not what you're doing.)

What I was upset about was the idea behind what you said, regardless of the words employed -- namely, that everyone involved had no intentions of following through. At the end of the day, we can only speak for ourselves with certainty (I can certainly work on this in some ways) and saying that came off as very dismissive. Now that you've clarified that you don't think we're all terminally online, doing it for social clout, not loving our life in the real world, posturing, deep down wanting to play it, I have no qualm with you.

@tradee9691: If you genuinely want me to tell you why a dead guy is doing less harm here and now than a currently living, fabulously wealthy anti-trans activist working in coordination with conversion therapists, lobbyists, and outright fascists, then I'm happy to explain it. Note how I said, "can no longer harm anyone." I never said he was fine, just that money to his estate doesn't have a direct line to harming people today the way money to JK Rowling does.

@lapsariangiraff: and I have no qualms with you. I’m fact, if you are a good person, I love you. There is no sarcasm in this question. What should a person that loves the Harry Potter world yet supports the trans community do? What would be a good compromise in your eye’s? Is there a compromise? If someone loves all people should they feel guilty for playing the game? ( I swear there is no sarcasm in any of those questions)

@lapsariangiraff: I don’t think the Jackson vs Rowling argument is going to teach any of us anything so let’s just look forward to how someone can play the game and still support the community. I really don’t want to fight. I just want to have a conversation about good people that want to play the game because they love the fiction.

@tradee9691:Everyone thinks they're a good person, it's worthless for me to tell you if I am :P

There are plenty of people that support the trans community but also loved (or continue to love) Harry Potter. In fact, a lot of those people are trans themselves. That's partially what is very irritating about this discourse -- the presumption that trans people are being online slacktivists having fun feeling superior to the punching bag of the day because they have nothing better to do, when really, a lot would like nothing better than to not have to think about this. A lot of trans people growing up loved Harry Potter, and only stopped because they literally couldn't interact with any of it without thinking about the woman who wants them dead.

As far as what anyone in this camp can do, there are lots of options, and I don't fully agree with a lot of them, but for personal, not ideological reasons. In short, I have my own problems with a few of these but they're better than nothing, and some of these are a disagreement of tactics, nothing more. I'm stacking these from least to most effort.

• Buy the game and enjoy it without talking about it nonstop. Everyone can enjoy the stuff they enjoy, but talking about it in super public places can just make any trans people overhearing you or seeing your posts uncomfortable. This option is not the best thing in the world to do, but it's a lot better than how a lot of people are acting, from otherwise well-meaning allies getting defensive and publicly trying to absolve themselves of any guilt or judgment, "I'm a good person, you see!" Or the exact opposite, trolls buying the game and gloating about it, replying to every person on the internet they can find that they're "buying the deluxe edition to support free speech." Those are both tasteless, for wildly different reasons.
• Buy the game later, on sale. If you must play the game, you can get it for cheaper and give less money to a harmful cause.
• Buy the game used. This will be harder/near impossible on PC, and physical copies are rarer, but if you buy this used in the future, no additional royalty checks will go to Rowling at all. There are also less... legal ways you can get at this concept, which I will not advocate for publicly.
• Do any of the top three and donate to trans charities, or raise for them.This is an interesting one which people disagree with even within trans circles. Now, this one gives me a bit of a weird feeling in my gut, because it feels a bit like a game of Tug of War, and you just voluntarily walk forward for a second only to go "no no no guys, I'm going to tug back extra hard later," but it's also not the worst. This is more effective for public figures who can raise a lot more than what they paid for the game with their platform.

Now, all of these involve playing the game, since you asked what compromise involves still playing the game for people who want to, but there are other things you can do. For instance, there is no shortage of fantasy RPGs about wizards at school.

As to your last question, that's a lot stickier. I think anyone who says they love all people, who wants to be supportive of the trans community, should feel at least a little guilt about playing the game. Someone who does that shows they care more about this specific game, whether that's due to their attachment to Harry Potter, or just because they think it looks like a fun game, than the wellbeing of trans people. This is the point a lot of people get hung up on, because they hear that and think, "you're calling me a bad person." But that's not what I mean. I literally mean exactly what I'm saying -- that people who do this care more about their personal entertainment than trans people. It's okay -- most people do, even our allies. It's easy to say "trans women are women," "I support trans rights," and a lot harder to make personal sacrifices, even just a simple videogame.

But this reality makes a lot of people uncomfortable. So they turn to their friends, to people on the internet, maybe even some trans people: "can't I be a good person and play this game?" Or they lash out and say, "you're being unreasonable, you're being picky, you're trying to tell everyone what to do, this is why no one likes you, no one will want trans rights if you act like this." Either way trans people are seen as inflicting themselves on everyone else's conscience. If we didn't exist, if we didn't speak up, everyone could play Hogwarts Legacy and be comfortable. But we do exist, and we're very loud about our problems with buying this game, so we're seen as the aggressors, even if we have no actual power.

Anyone can play the game. They just shouldn't expect trans people who know to be happy about it. And honestly? That's a minor inconvenience compared to what's coming down the road for transgender people in the United States.

I listened to Hasanabi view of this situation…it’s a really difficult situation, but I feel like us on the left really missed the mark on this issue. This is the reason the left is sidelined in modern politics and called fringe. If you play this game because HP means something to you, and you are called unambiguously a bigot, how is anyone coming to our side. Twitter isn’t real life. As for the GameSpot article that says if you can’t stop yourself from buying a video game then you won’t support the trans community when it comes to issues like government making anti-trans laws. This is an absurd take. I will stand with the LGBTQIA+ against any government that tries to harm them, but this isn’t it and it’s making the left seem ridiculous.

@grayfox666: I agree with the fact that politicizing everything just draws us all apart. We are all literally left leaning people in this thread and we are fighting. We all have very similar beliefs. I feel most people are pretty good. I feel like most people want individuals to be who they are. I hope I am right. I just don’t understand why everything is politicized all the time. I want to be better than that. I want our country to be better than that. I’m an idiot but I think the golden rule looks like a utopia.

How did this become even more insane and unhinged since the last time I looked at this thread? Social clout, M&Ms, Michael Jackson, Mr. Potato Head, the political left? None of that crap matters here. Trans people do. If you care at all, listen to them. Listen to their view. If you don't, just play your stupid video game.

I'm just gonna say this, the "don't do the bad thing, the bad thing is bad" approach has time and again been proven to be a highly ineffective way of achieving societal change. I get that it's very a tempting approach, as it's an immediate and obvious change and we're used to dealing with issues this way in our day-to-day life, but on a larger scale where the stakes are higher it tends to lead to division and hostility.

Actual change usually comes through longer, slower processess where the tension gets to mellow out over time and people get to learn and understand things step by step. It might seem like confrontational events like this is part of that process, as they do lead to an opportunity to highlight and educate, but with all the aftermath it tends to end up being a one step forward, two steps back situation.

@ares42:I dunno. That approach ended segregation, and slavery (outside of US) for example.

This thread is a microcosm of the wider Discourse and it's just frustrating. I'm just copy-pasting my older post here: The Discourse is just mind numbing. Basically every side (in this case, the people protesting the game, JK Rowling, and the people buying the game) agree that people who buy the game don't give a shit about transpeople, but the Discourse is about whether or not it's ok to make people feel bad about buying the game.

The leaps of logic where Gamers are treated as the victim of the mean transpeople and their allies is just a gold metal in the mental leap olympics. People such as @apewinsoutright stating that they don't care about the opinions of transpeople, but implying that transpeople themselves are responsible for their persecution because they let people "live rent free" in their head. Read the fucking news, people, if you think the persecution is just in their heads. There is a wide world outside of fucking video games and you need to stop pretending it doesn't exist.

@ares42:It is a long, slow process. And from a certain vantage point, I can see that as a passive stance. But the unfortunate reality is that the only way progress is made is through minorities being more vocal pushing the boulder up the hill. These same arguments against confrontation, in favor of civility have come up again and again, from the suffragettes to gay marriage.

Some of y'all are arguing against a strawman.

-@grayfox666 No one here has called anyone else in the thread a bigot. I understand there are obnoxious Twitter lefties, but it feels weird to revert to the worst version of this argument from Twitter when there are people here talking much more reasonably. You're also implicitly tying Jessie Earl's article, which made a huge point of not calling people bigots, to the most unhinged Twitter users.

-@tradee9691 Everything has always been political, some of us just have the luxury to ignore it.

@brian_ People will bring up anything they can think of to deflect from the main point and source of discomfort. I don't think it's malicious, just reflexive.

@retris A-men.

Using your platform of millions for transphobic propaganda is actual violence. JK Rowling's words lead to direct violence against trans people. Violence, real world violence, towards trans people has been steadily rising, due to transphobic rhetoric.

Italicizing that is pretty telling. We are not playing oppression Olympics. Better things are possible.

@lapsariangiraff: I read that article and if I made a mistake please let me know, but I cant find the article on the main page. However I do find articles like this.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/hogwarts-legacy-beasts-vivarium-capture-tame-guide/1100-6511394/

@retris: I'm not denying that it can lead to positive results, but with the amount of times it has ended up being ineffective or backfiring I wouldn't exactly recommend it.

@grayfox666: This is probably the one you're thinking about. It was only on the main page for a day or so. It's an understandable mistake to make, because Jessie Earl has been pretty active on Twitter (plus, if you follow any streamers like Hasanabi, Vaush, or Keffals, it's easy to see her and the most ardent Twitter users as synonymous,) but in this article she specifically says that folks aren't bigots if they play the game. If the entire article is too long for you (though I do recommend it,) she says this at the end, in the second to last or last paragraph.

Given your post, I'm sure there's a lot about her article you disagree with, but she's not calling people transphobic for playing it -- just that they aren't effective trans allies and unlikely to make any other real sacrifice.

@ares42: Counterpoint: There are very few times that societal change has been achieved without conflict.

I understand JK Rowling transphobic and spreading hate which people should rightfully be vocal against her views, but isn't the Harry Potter franchise bigger than her at this point. Nothing about the franchise is transphobic the developers have tried making the game more inclusive although a little bit.

The game has become a lighting rod for discourse and talk of boycotting the title or not reviewing it seems kinda stupid when its being backed by WB Interactive, surely that action should include all WB products. Cherry picking one title isn't unlikely to change anything, it would need to be ongoing consistant and loud.

@thepanzini: "Isn't Harry Potter bigger than JKR at this point" is like saying "Isn't Tesla bigger than Elon Musk at this point." Harry Potter is entirely her property. She takes a healthy chunk out of every bit of that business.

To repeat a couple of things that have had to be said multiple times in this thread:

-No one is saying the game is transphobic, or the franchise, just that its profits go to fund transphobic groups in the real world. Which is worse.
-You can boycott one bad thing without boycotting literally every other bad thing, this is an unfair purity test applied only to progressive causes. (Though I'd say, I don't follow your logic in this specific case either. Warner Brothers isn't who to boycott, just anything from The Wizarding World franchise. Boycotting Mortal Kombat doesn't send a statement on JK Rowling, that makes no sense. WB is only following profit incentives like any other company, so the point is to make HP less profitable or too much of a PR mess to touch, like the recent third Fantastic Beasts movie.)
-Finally, no one involved is expecting to literally tank the sales of Hogwarts Legacy, or change the entire conversation around JK Rowling or trans rights with one game. (At least, I hope not, they'd be delusional.) People are chipping away at this one moment at a time, whenever attention is already on a new Harry Potter release. It will be consistent, and ongoing, and loud. It has been for the past few years. I remember just a couple years ago people were much more ambivalent and apathetic about this topic, but we have a lot more support. For example, you're saying now, "I understand JK Rowling is transphobic," but most people wouldn't even admit that then. It's not glamorous, but constantly reinforcing this point is having an effect. I don't begrudge bystanders for not seeing that as much, but it's working. Like I mentioned in another post, we're pushing the boulder up the hill a little at a time.

@retris: What ? That's neither relevant to what I was talking about nor even close to being true. Just in my lifetime our society has changed in extreme ways no one could've ever predicted through innovation and science, and you believe most of it was challenged through conflict ? The world is a completely different place now and that changes peoples attitudes and perceptions of all kinds of things.

@ares42: What are you even talking about with "innovation and science"? What, societally, has changed for marginalized groups with STEM shit?

Here's an example from your presumed lifetime: gay rights. Gay people fought tooth and nail, protesting, making people uncomfortable, and dealing with state violence to get to a place where being who they are isn't a crime. The 80s and 90s were full of queer activists activists marching the streets saying "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", which is the definition of making people uncomfortable. In my lifetime I had seen government leadership not only ignore, but outright make fun of gay people for contracting AIDS. And then gay people and their allies hit back and call out society's cruelty. They did not lie down and take the abuse, they fought back and won rights. They got sodomy laws off the books, got AIDS research funded and the medical establishment to take them seriously, and even won the right to marry the person they love. And they didn't do it by singing fucking kumbaya with the people trying to kill them, or the normies who shrugged their shoulders at the awful status quo.

Anyway, ball's in your court chief. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Would love to see what you could possibly argue to make your inane point.

I never made this claim. Nothing I've talked about has been about the specific topic of marginalized groups. I've been talking about the methodologies used in this conflict.

Here is your initial comment in full:

And then, in response to Retris saying that "There are very few times that societal change has been achieved without conflict." you said:

So, what you're saying is that certain groups should not use the "bad thing is bad" approach. If this isn't applicable to marginalized groups, in a thread about a marginalized groups doing that very thing, then what are you even talking about? The level of gaslighting here is absurd.

So I will ask again, what specifically is your point about technology and science? That we have phones in our pockets now? How is that in any way relevant to the issues being discussed? Does ray tracing somehow alleviate the violence on trans people meted out every single day? Again, I ask, what the fuck is your point?

@navster15: My point, as I tried to state in my first post, is that the approach of trying to convince people that something they enjoy is "wrong" usually does more harm than good for whatever the cause might be. As I already stated, the entire discussion about conflict and societal change is not relevant to that point. Wether or not conflict is required for societal change doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that kind of approach is effective or not.

@ares42: So you say that saying bad things are bad is not effective in getting people to support marginalized groups. Both Retris and I provided examples that this is entirely wrong. Calling bad things bad is literally the first thing you do when initiating any conflict. So what is your example of calling bad things bad as inneffective? Show your work.

No, that's not what I said. I said Trying to convince people that something they enjoy is "wrong". Which is a very different thing. You can talk to someone all you want about the troubles of your marginalized group and how you wish things were etc etc, and try to get them to understand. But once you start telling them what they're doing is wrong and bad you're being invasive and confrontational, which a lot of people will respond negatively to.

In a small group situation this can usually (but not always) be dealt with as you can hash things out and have a real conversation about things, but once you scale things up that kinda conversation isn't possible anymore. So you now just create a lot of negativity and tension around the subject without any real means of resolving it.

@ares42: People "enjoy" Joe Rogan's anti-vaxxer and misogynist podcast. People "enjoy" voting for politicians that are trying to restrict reproductive rights. People "enjoy" watching anti-trans activists on talk shows. Calling out that shit is in no way "wrong". It is in no way "wrong" to call a spade a spade and say that folks purchasing Hogwarts Legacy, especially right now at full price, simply do not care about trans people. And what is the alternative? Just shut up, let Rowling collect her royalty checks and continue her crusade to erase trans people? Truly, if you have a better idea that isn't just tearing down the hard work people are doing, please tell us.

You are speaking from a position of comfort and privilege. You know who deals with negativity and tension daily? Trans people. Go upthread and read some of the posts by actual trans people telling you about how they fear for their lives every day. And you're telling us to not make a big deal out of buying this video game, for what? Civility? So that the normies who are just fine with anti-trans laws, hate crimes, and general alienation of trans people, can feel comfortable? Do you realize how cruel that sounds?