J. K. Rowling literally erased from Seattle Museum display of Harry Potter

August 8, 2023 • 12:40 pm

An exhibit about Harry Potter at the Seattle Museum of Pop Culture (which elected Rowling to its Hall of Fame some time ago), has now omitted any mention of the author of the Harry Potter books.  And you know why: J. K. Rowling is mistakenly seen as a transphobe.  No, she’s not a transphobe, and doesn’t hate or preach against trans people, but is simply protective of some “women’s spaces”, and that’s good enough to demonize her.

This shameful episode, a literal cancellation, is described in the Daily Fail (click below to read), but is supported by a crazy blog post written by exhibition project manager Chris Moore (post also below), who happens to be transgender.  The post calls Rowling “she-who-must-not-be-named” and “you-know-who”, which of course your mind immediately replaces with “J. K. Rowling”.  And Moore’s accusations are beyond lunacy: they are confected in a hateful way to make Rowling seem as odious as possible. I happen to think Rowling is courageous, and, although she’s rich and famous, has still been disturbed by vicious attacks by genuine haters who don’t seem to understand (or willfully misunderstand) her position. Of course attackers have free speech, and can say what they want (short of defamation), but that won’t stop us from thinking that they’re deeply misguided.

Click to read:


A Seattle Museum has airbrushed JK Rowling from its hall of fame and Harry Potter exhibition over her gender-critical views.

The Museum of Pop Culture (MoPOP) in Washington hit out at the famous author and accused her of holding ‘super hateful and divisive’ opinions.

It defended its decision to remove all references to Rowling, 58, in a lengthy blog post on Saturday.

The museum still has Harry Potter memorabilia on display but any mention of the author of the franchise has been airbrushed.

Rowling has faced criticism for her views on transgender issues after she argued women should not be fired for believing biological sex is real.

Some of the actors in Harry Potter movies have taken a stand against Rowling:

. . .[Daniel] Radcliffe who shot to fame playing Harry Potter in the film series last year said young fans had been ‘hurt’ by Rowling’s views on trans issues.

While Rupert Grint, who played Ron Weasley, said: ‘trans women are women, trans men are men’.

Emma Watson, who portrayed Hermione Granger, donated money to transgender lobby charity Mermaids in 2020 and asked her Twitter followers to do the same.

Rowling has received abuse online for her gender-critical views and in 2021 she said she received ‘enough death threats to paper my house’ after trans activists leaked her address online and staged a protest outside it.

She has spoken out about her concerns making it easier to legally change gender over the safety concerns of biological women.

The author was extremely critical of former Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s attempts to change the law to allow people to self-identify without a medical certificate.

A MoPOP spokesman said told The Telegraph: ‘MoPOP is proud to support our employees and unequivocally stands with nonbinary and transgender communities. In an increasingly divided world, pop culture can unite, inspire, and spark important conversations.

‘Education and creative expression are the heart of our mission and in our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, we strive to elevate those that are left out of the mainstream pop culture conversation, by amplifying voices and stories that are not always seen on museum walls.’

To wit (from the Fail):

Now, read this piece of agitprop by Moore published in the Museum of Pop Culture’s blog (click below).

An excerpt will give you the tenor of this unhinged and hateful piece. Bolding is Moore’s:

There’s a certain cold, heartless, joy-sucking entity in the world of Harry Potter and, this time, it is not actually a Dementor.

We would love to go with the internet’s theory that these books were actually written without an author, but this certain person is a bit too vocal with her super hateful and divisive views to be ignored. Yes, we’re talking about J.K. Rowling, and no, we don’t like that we’re giving her more publicity, so that’s the last you’ll see of her name in this post. We’ll just stick with You-Know-Who because they’re close enough in character.

Her transphobic viewpoints are front and center these days, but we can’t forget all the other ways that she’s problematic: the support of antisemitic creators, the racial stereotypes that she used while creating characters, the incredibly white wizarding world, the fat shaming, the lack of LGBTQIA+ representation, the super-chill outlook on the bigotry and othering of those that don’t fit into the standard wizarding world, and so much more. We’re going to be focusing on You-Know-Who’s transphobic views in this blog post because she’s really doubled down on them lately.

Fat shaming? Lack of LGBTQIA+ characters, racial stereotypes, the “white wizarding world”, and “othering”: this person is really trying to collect everything he can to throw at Rowling, hoping some of it sticks.  And so Moore then raises the possibility of genocide of trans people, which is insane:

While the Harry Potter series is a major player in the pop culture sphere, we wanted to give credit to the work of the actors, prop makers, and costume designers in our Fantasy gallery. We learned that You-Know-Who was a problem, which is why you’ll see the artifacts without any mention or image of the author. After all, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are all incredibly vocal allies. Should we forget their work now that the original author is terrible? I’m not even talking about “separating art from artist” but giving credit where it’s due. I’ll never be able to purely enjoy Hagrid or Stephen Fry again because of their support of the author, but I’ll always be a wreck when Dumbledore… y’know. No spoilers. Besides, there’s plenty about Dumbledore that I’ll be a wreck about.

Even poor Stephen Fry is demonized for defending Rowling. According to the rest of the blog, the Museum is now trying to figure out what to do about Rowling’s earlier election to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame.  For the nonce they’ve kept her in there while removing her name from the exhibit about the things that got her elected:

You-Know-Who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2018 before she became the face of trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF). If you keep looking in there, you’ll see other figures with questionable if not downright disturbing pasts. But what does that mean? Are MoPOP’s hands tied on something that is in our building? Again, it’s complicated. For the time being, the Curators decided to remove any of her artifacts from this gallery to reduce her impact. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s what we were able to do in the short-term while determining long-term practices.

Odds are that they’ll find a way to remove her, but I’m betting that Rowling doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about this.

70 thoughts on “J. K. Rowling literally erased from Seattle Museum display of Harry Potter

  1. Moore comes across as completely deranged. I wonder how much control JKR has over how her creation and her characters are exploited. It would serve the “Museum of Pop Culture” (I had better not write down my reaction to that concept) right if she was able to withdraw their option to display them at all. In default of that, I hope she maximises the royalties she can extract from them.

  2. Are there no causes of action for defamation related to the claims about being “transphobic” and other matters? And isn’t it hypocritical of them to display works of her creation–drawing visitors and money, no doubt–without crediting her? What have THEY ever done for the world apart from virtue-signaling while riding on the coat-tails of truly creative people? I’m frankly ashamed that Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, none of whom would have careers (most likely) without Rowling’s work.

    1. It isn’t even “most likely” that Grint et al wouldn’t have film career sans Rowling, it’s absolutely certain they would not. None of them are particularly talented. They fit the Harry Potter characters well, but that’s about it. Ungrateful little work twits

    2. I’m not a lawyer, but defamation is very hard to prove in the US, especially against a public figure. I have no doubt this would be dismissed as opinion, and then there is the question of how you define “transphobic.” I go with the standard dictionary definition: Demonstrating unreasonable fear, dislike or hatred of trans people. I’ve never seen anything JKR said or wrote that demonstrates that, but others consider any disagreement with radical trans activist positions to be transphobic, and they no doubt could get many “expert” witnesses that would declare her transphobic.

      Regarding the actors, given the politics of Hollywood, if they dared to support her they would be cancelled themselves. They are in a much more fragile position than JKR, so I can’t really blame them even if I don’t like it.

  3. To give some context to those who are not familiar with Harry Potter, “You know who” and “He who must not be named” are other names for Voldemort, the main antagonist of the book series. This blogger is comparing Rowling to an evil wizard who commits genocide. Yes, it’s that silly.

  4. I am a life-long progressive, a defender of human rights, and a writer. I find this inexcusable. It is true that the right is going nuts with book banning etc., but the “left” is also off the wall. I’ve supported Rowlings from the beginning, no one should receive the treatment she has. Is there a place where we can email this museum?

    1. No. The so-called “Right” are parents upset that gay pornography is being peddled to their children. That freedom of speech does not include grooming and sexual pandering to underge public school students has long been understood. Thus, for example, why when concerned parents read what is actually in the books they want removed from children’s libraries, they are often silenced at town hall meetings for indecent vulgarity (note also that nothing prevents having such books moved to the adult section).

      It’s the radical socialist fanatics who are nuts. Nor are they “going there” – they have been nuts for some time now, thank you very much, and are now punishing people for rightfully calling them out on their Left fascist lunacy. Note likewise that when JK Rowling is your idea of an “extreme far-right fascist” you are already well beyond the precipice of tolerable Leftist ideology.

  5. Edit: to Robert Elessar @#2.

    The difficulty in suing for defamation over being called transphobic is that the aggrieved person would be giving uptake to the notion that tansphobia is an actual objective thing that would damage your reputation were you to be truly guilty of it. As it is, there is no more proof that one is “transphobic” than there is a defence that one is not. Remember an absolute defence against libel is the proof that the accusation is true. Would we really want a legal definition of transphobia enshrined in law so that the next thing would be criminalization of transphobia as a form of hate speech (in jurisdictions that have no First Amendment protections) or something that you could get fired for?

    No, better to leave it as it is now: a playground insult like “racist” or “pizza-face” that has no meaning and therefore needs no defence.

    As for the actors, they’re actors, narcissists all, who believe that they brought Ms Rowlings’s characters to life all by their own larger-than-life selves and JK had nothing to do with it.

    1. Yup, the young actors who owe their entire careers to Jo Rowling – and continue to make fortunes from the success of the films that her creativity was behind – have treated her appallingly. The tide is turning and when the true horrors about the legacy of “gender-affirming care” are laid bare it will be interesting to see what they have to say for themselves for supporting that ideological nonsense.

    2. I’m surprised that you consider ‘racist’ to be a term that has no meaning and therefore needs no defence. It may be that the term is sometimes, even often, levelled baselessly at people in the ‘culture wars’ but that does not mean there are not people who are genuinely racist. What term would you use, for example, to describe football crowds who make monkey noises and throw bananas at black players on the pitch? That, still happens in some matches in Europe and it most certainly is not the only manifestation of racism (or the most serious) in Europe, North America or elsewhere in the world.

      It also doesn’t make much sense to me to suggest that there is no such thing as ‘transphobia’. Whatever one’s views on the relationship between biological sex and self-determined gender, there is undeniably a group of people who identify as ‘trans’ and it is possible to have an unreasonable hatred of such people much as it is possible to have an unreasonable hatred of homosexuals (I am aware that ‘phobia’ in its original clinical sense refers to a fear rather than a dislike but the term is now widely used to refer to antipathy towards one section of the population or another).

      It may well be not worthwhile for J K Rowling to try to sue those who accuse her of transphobia but I think it is nevertheless a defamation of her character to be so described and one which does clear harm to her, given that it results in hate-mail, threats and other abuse which must make her life pretty miserable.

      1. There is no agreed-upon definition of racism that I would be willing to be judged by. In Canada’s provinces, it is illegal to discriminate in hiring or public accommodation according to race (and a long list of other protected categories), except when the government wants to compel you to discriminate for social justice reasons. But the offence (it’s a civil procedure, not a criminal trial) is not “racism” or “being a racist”. It’s discriminating in hiring or accommodation on the basis of race. If this is proved on balance of probability, you pay damages. You don’t get a big “R” burned into your cheek.

        If members of a certain race have a stereotypically well-known local propensity to not show up for work on time and to disappear without notice when ceremonial hunting season starts, one would try to avoid hiring those people unless you were the civil service where their absence just means the line of supplicants takes longer to reach the one wicket that is still staffed. (A recent strike by the federal civil service actually did obtain the right for certain race-defined employees to go hunting when they feel like it.) An oil rig that must have all ten roughnecks on the crew in order to work safely can’t afford to hire people who don’t show up. And the workers who do show up will resent those who didn’t, causing them to be sent home. If that is racist, so be it but the oil rig doesn’t care. The rig operator’s task is not to define racism, it’s to avoid getting cited in a human rights complaint over its hiring decisions.

        It is not illegal to refuse categorically to date someone or be friends with someone of a race or gender presentation you don’t like, even though many would decry that as “racist” or “transphobic”. It is not illegal to make monkey noises in a stadium or hockey arena, although the management would eject you if it considered your presence was no longer desirable, just as it says on your ticket. It would certainly eject you for throwing anything onto the field or the ice. The media would describe the behaviour as “ugly” and might even call it “racist”. But so what? The media aren’t the judges of behaviour.

        I stand on my position that trying to decide if someone is “a racist” is a pointless exercise. I’ll hide in the thickets of the law, not trust the currents and eddies of right and wrong you find such plain sailing.
        (Actual quote and citation here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/792328-the-currents-and-eddies-of-right-and-wrong-which-you)

  6. When I think of “cold, heartless, joy-sucking” women with “super hateful and divisive” views, I think e.g. of Magda Goebbels, who was an Übernazi like her husband Joseph, and poisoned her six children in the Führerbunker. Others think of Joanne Rowling. I seem to live in a different world.

    1. She is still a human being, and apparently one who cares about other humans. Just because she’s so rich and successful that she can’t be effectively canceled, doesn’t make the abuse that’s flung her way acceptable.

      1. No, it doesn’t. And the offended Museum of Pop Culture should remove the tainted exhibit, as making money off it’s despised creator would be hypocritical.

  7. There’s an underlying battle going on here over which group has the right to define the term “transphobe.” Is it the general public? The most vocal trans activists? The Objective Rational Person? Trans people (who are a varied lot?) Those who are critical of aspects of the ideology and/or treatments? The transphobes?

    From a source that expresses the most common view of trans activists:

    The core value underlying all transphobia is a rejection of trans identity and a refusal to acknowledge that it could possibly be real or valid… The consequence of transphobia is that trans people struggle to live openly and comfortably in society. An ultimate outcome may be the erasure of trans people as a viable class of people.

    By “real or valid” is meant in every conceivable situation. TWAW and TMAM, period.

    Arguing for single-sex anything (including rape shelters and women’s sports) is therefore a sign of irrational hatred and fear of trans people, because it means you think transwomen aren’t real women, and transmen aren’t real men. There’s no point then in telling trans activists that JKR isn’t a transphobe. She clearly is, under their definition.

    So much of this controversy comes down to a battle over definitions and the concepts defined.

    1. Well, I used the term as “someone who has a phobia about trans people”, just as “agoraphobia” means “fear of being in open spaces.” Using that common meaning of “phobe” or “phobia”, a transphobe would be someone with a deep-seated fear of trans people. And I don’t think that characterizes Rowling.

      1. A very reasonable definition.

        In Rowling’s case, they point to her concerns over potential male violence (whether it be from transwomen or men who would only pretend to be transwomen) as the worst kind of fear-mongering, tantamount to claiming that all transwomen are predators. Rowling is presumably letting her phobic-level fear and hate blind her to the obvious, well established facts that:

        1.) Transwomen never exhibit male patterns of violence, since they are women. Sometimes this means there’s no credible record, other times it means that women can be violent, too.

        2.) Men who want to attack, molest, or even just ogle women would almost never go through the bother and/or humiliation of pretending to be transgender to gain access.

        3.) Any violence of this nature which does happen to be perpetrated on women pales in significance compared to the regular and systematic violence done against transwomen, often instigated by people like JKR claiming they’re a potential threat. Their blood is on her hands.

        If it’s not their own definitions, it’s their own facts.

        1. A male who wishes to live as a woman has every right to do so, but if he has not undergone treatment then he remains male. Greater musculature, male genitalia, testosterone levels etc. Sorry, but that;s biology for you. Could it be that people with your selfish views hold significant responsibility for any violence against transwomen, I wonder?

              1. I’m not sure what you mean, then. I was describing a view I don’t hold, and defending Rowling. Or were you agreeing that she and I both hold significant responsibility for violence against transwomen? If so, maybe you could expand on that.

              2. I made the same mistake, and it took me re-reading Sastra’s comment a few times to determine that she’s not putting forth her own argument, but theirs.

        2. I think your points 1, 2 and 3 don’t stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
          Twitter is awash with biological males (you might call them “trans women”) threatening and urging others to “punch a TERF”.

            1. Thanks for the clarification. Without an accompanying explanation, Sastra’s comments are confusing, though.

        3. Statement 2 is just untrue. Does the name Isla Bryson mean anything to you? How about Demetrius Minor? Does that name mean anything to you?

        4. Detailed studies of this have already been done. People claiming to be trans and actual trans people are a very real threat to women in bathrooms and prisons. JKR (and others) have presented statistics to support this point. Of course, you are making stuff up about JKR. Let me quote from her “I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people” and “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”. On what planet is JKR even trivially “transphobic’. Not the planet sometimes called “Earth”.

      2. I recently learned a new word: “transmisia”. (Rowling is neither transphobic nor “transmisic”.)

        “Another example of the power of language is the shift in use of the suffix “phobia” to “misia” to describe prejudices. The suffix “phobia” is Greek for “fear of” and is used in words like “homophobia,” “transphobia,” and “islamophobia” to describe prejudice and discrimination toward people in those groups. The problem is that the term “phobia” inaccurately attributes oppression and oppressive attitudes to fear rather than to hate and bigotry and implies that the attitudes and actions of oppressive people are out of their control, thereby removing personal responsibility. The term “misia,” on the other hand, is Greek for hate or hatred, which is a more accurate descriptor of the prejudice taking place, such as in “queermisia,” “transmisia,” and “islamomisia” (Simmons Library, 2018c).”

        (Rogers, Anissa Taun. /Human Behavior in the Social Environment./ 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2019. p. 159)

    2. “The consequence of transphobia is that trans people struggle to live openly and comfortably in society”.
      I’m quite happy for a man to dress up as a woman and go about his life as a woman. I don’t accept that said man is actually a woman.
      Transphobia ?

  8. The claim of “lack of LGBTQIA+ representation” in the Harry Potter series is a very strange one, and anyone who pays attention to this sort of thing ought to have been aware that it’s false. Among fans of the series it’s well-known that Albus Dumbledore, one of the series’ most iconic characters, is intended to be gay, and Rowling has confirmed that to be the case.

    There aren’t any transgender characters, but that’s fairly realistic considering the series is meant to take place during the 1990s, when being transgender was a lot rarer than it is nowadays.

    1. But, these days, a single gay character doesn’t cut it. These days, at least half need to be LGBTQ+ and at least half people “of colour”. And yes, JK is definitely at fault for not having anticipated these trends!

    2. Also, the entitlement is tanglible with that kind of complaint. All stories are highly simplified and dramatized sketches of reality that leave out the vast majority of the complexity of human society – because those complexities are irrelevant to the story, and because it couldn’t do justice to them anyway. So yes, not all types of people will be represented in proportion to the real world – there are noticeably few accountants, construction workers and supermarket cashiers featured in most novels, for example. And demanding that the particular ones that YOU care about HAVE TO BE (because otherwise the book is not just an artistic, but a moral failure) is just narcissism.

  9. Someone’s taking the title of Roland Barthes’s 1967 literary essay “La mort de l’auteur” a little too literally.

  10. It seems to me that the museum needs to recognize that its past self was wrong, and tacitly participated in Rowling’s crimes by honoring her. It should cancel itself.

    1. The depiction of the wizarding world’s version of cancel culture in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was kind of prescient, wasn’t it? I especially thought that about the way Rowling describes the Quibbler, the only publication that’s willing to print an interview with Harry after he’s been cancelled, and which everyone ends up reading even though nobody wants to admit they do. And this was in a book from 2003!

  11. Edit: Replying to Lorna Salzman @#7.

    Did she? How do you know? Presumably her royalties from the sale of her books would flow fuller if more people bought them as a result of the notoriety. That’s standard in publishing. But for the movies and merchandise, her compensation would depend on the contract and licensing agreements. I don’t see how we can know that she is earning more out of this trans lunacy than she was before. What activity would be producing an income stream? You don’t know that she earns another million pounds every time someone threatens on Twitter to choke her to death with his clitoris, to cite one of the milder epithets. And she must pay a lot more for security than back in the day when Emma Watson seemed to be a nice little kid.

    1. Personally I’d sue for defamation. It’s one thing to quietly remove a name, but to go on an accusatory unhinged rant in public is something else entirely. The malice standard as applied to a public figure is certainly met.

      1. It isn’t worth it, and it wouldn’t work. All it would do is result in more attention paid to this sad event, and more social media commentary piling on one side or the other.

    2. Did she cry all the way to the bank? Who knows. I believe the point of no 7 was that she has lots of money, not that her wealth increased as a result of recent abuse. In fact she is quoted as saying in response to another cancellation: “I will always be able to feed my kids, even if everyone boycotts my books for the rest of my life. That is a phenomenally privileged position to be in.”.

  12. I’ve been to the museum several times. It was started by Microsoft co-founder, the late Paul Allen. We won’t be going there next week when our out-of-town visitors come to town. Moore’s piece is cruel and inaccurate. Let’s hope it is ignored and soon forgotten. It deserves both.

  13. Slightly off-topic, but the museum housing the Tudor warship the Mary Rose has just embarrassed itself by publishing this nonsense on their website, about seeing the wreck “through a queer lens”:

    The most common personal objects that we found on the Mary Rose were nit combs. There were 82 in total. These nit combs would have been mainly used by the men to remove nits from their hair, rather than using the comb to style their hair (which would have usually been covered up by a hat). However, for many Queer people today, how we wear our hair is a central pillar of our identity. Today, hairstyles are often heavily gendered, following the gender norm that men have short hair, and women have long hair. By ‘subverting’ and playing with gender norms, Queer people can find hairstyles that they feel comfortable wearing.


    A museum apparently unaware that the gender norm that men have short hair hasn’t always been the case, and that non-queer people also “can find hairstyles that they feel comfortable wearing”.

      1. OMG. I like this bit

        This blog does not attempt to identify the sexuality or gender identity of crew members, which would be an impossible task

        Gender identity would be easy: they all identified as men – except for the females on board (there may have been a few) who would have identified as women.

    1. Good grief! What a complete irrelevance and unasked-for imposition of the author’s preoccupations on the reader.

      Several days ago I wrote a dessert recipe for someone. I now realise I should have added several sentences about reading the recipe through a cis-normative lens or, since she seems a bit new-aged, perhaps an atheist lens.

    2. “Today, hairstyles are often heavily gendered, following the gender norm that men have short hair, and women have long hair.”

      As a perennially pony-tailed male, I resemble that remark.

    3. I wonder if the museum would feel comfortable talking about other aspects of queerness as it relates to the British Navy… such as this paragraph from the Articles of War:
      “XXIX. If any Person in the Fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable Sin of Buggery or Sodomy with Man or Beast, he shall be punished with Death by the Sentence of a Court-martial.”

      1. At least it would have been relevant, unlike the “This is a mirror. Queer people look at themselves in mirrors. This is a ring. Queer people wear rings…” nonsense .

      2. I think they could handle it. Despite Article XXIX, the institution of sodomy was well known as the midshipman’s lot. (As in other boarding schools, the abuse was more usually inflicted by the senior boys on the junior, as a form of hazing.) In 1913, Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty was receiving pushback from some sea-lord admirals for impugning the traditions or the Royal Navy. He responded, “And what are they? They are rum, sodomy, and the lash.”


    4. My understanding was that members of the British Navy “expressing their queer identities” most often did so through an involuntary introduction of some neophyte sailor to the “secrets of the sea.” I believe no less a public figure than Sir Winston Churchill commented upon it.

  14. And one of those idiotic haters is none other than Prof PZ Myers, a lecturer in biology at the University of Minnesota!! How is it that someone with his education and intellectual credentials can rant (non-stop) that JK Rowling is an evil person? I had the beginnings of a calm and rational discussion with him some months ago on Pharyngula – but then he seemingly took umbrage and banned me from his site. Unbelievable.

    1. What? You had something like a rational discussion with P.Z.? Miracles do happen!
      He and his school of internet piranhas have fully embraced the dark side of social justice activism more than a decade ago.

    2. Myers argued that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is far less serous that inviting (at 4:00 AM) someone up to you room for Coffee. Myers is crazy.

  15. The only way the authoritarian left’s militantism on this issue makes sense to me is that it’s trying to starve the real threat the far right poses of any ammunition they can use in their quest to unravel the sexual revolution. Beyond that, it’s baffling how bad faith the debate among the left has.

  16. I looked up JK Rowling’s website and found some of the messages she received from purported transwomen with male gentalia. Those were grotesque & disturbing, clearly at odds with Sastra’s “well established facts” listed above about purported nonviolent attitudes of transpeople. I reckon if I copied some of them here I would violate community standards for politeness and decency — plenty of graphic rape threats directed someone who has had to endure same.

    For me, nothing polite to to say about the cancellation of Rowling and Moores self-parodying rant. Unselfconscious, entitled, precious self-parody isn’t funny — it’s bizarre.

    On the basis of Thyroid Planet’s previous comments I have Kathleen Moore’s 2021 Material Girls book on order via the local university’s interlibrary loan with a bit of help from a faculty member the, 73-year old geezer like me, an old pre-kindergarten pal, a veteran worldly journalist who’s thinking…well, never mind.

Leave a Reply