Talk:J. K. Rowling: Difference between revisions

Death threat

A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and Rosie Duffield. [1] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 7

Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 7.1: 403 words

Historical: 429 words

Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling has [some contributors want to add a qualifier here] gender-critical views. She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them". Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater. When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". Rowling's views have affected her reputation. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".

Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF. She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood. Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron; and the charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny, she received insults and death threats and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community. Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".

Sources

Sources
References Notes

Discussion

Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

PS, this might provide an updated source to replace her website essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started:

• I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase gender-critical so I'll try to flesh those out later.
• Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing.
• For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
• "affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8
• Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified?

That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed. Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term gender-critical may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.
    Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited (Project MUSE book 111748} or Konchar Farr {Project MUSE book 99615), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".
      I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.
      But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
      • I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

        @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

        Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

        My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

        Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

        I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards.

        I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15: "Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made."

        I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again.

        I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

        With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

        I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

        From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of The Wikipedia Library goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire, USA Today, and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Her statements have divided feminists...

This sentence was cut because:

• It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and
• There was pressure to cut the word count.

I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg here, although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Bastun re this edit, WP:WIAFA is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as WP:FACR, Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from Featured Article Review; it is not clear to me that S Marshall was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:

• one source is explicitly about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading.
• One source is just probably not very good: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented.
• The third source is... honestly a great article by Judith Butler, but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is WP:FRINGE is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism.

----

So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)

Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is.

There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)

We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Re and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of WP:WIAFA by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that NEWS here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm unsure where we are headed if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM.

Victoriaearle, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.

As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.

As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.Victoria (tk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This morning's article in The Times

is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? Loki (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar, @S Marshall: There's a summary and context at this BBC article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For easy discussion.

I mentioned this above, but:

"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased.

I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want.

Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier.

These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. Loki (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 8

I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 8.2: 407 words	Draft 8.3, with extra paragraph: 444 words	Historical: 429 words
Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling has gender-critical views. She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them". Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". Rowling's views have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".	Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling has gender-critical views. She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them". Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". Rowling's views have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful. Sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. In 2023, streaming series Max (formerly HBO) began to develop a television series which will be released in 2026. Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".	Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF. She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood. Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron; and the charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny, she received insults and death threats and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community. Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".

Sources
References Notes

Discussion of Draft 8

S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression:

She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.

It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this.

I would phrase it as She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Loki (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes):

1. She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. 2. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. 3. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes. SandyGeorgia, re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." Victoria (tk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I also share this, uh, concern with Adam.

  My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that

  Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women

  we're implicitly saying that

  easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women

  , a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Believes" seems better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I dislike using the word believes; we don't know what's in her head, we know what she has stated. I have no problem with the word concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Forstater times 3

Working on redundancy:

Current proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater. When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that

--> Less repetitive: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that

Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed in draft 8.2.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thx! Still working through ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But sales of books grew, and more

Why was this sentence cut? There's more, see for example "In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... " that we discussed, now back in Archive 20. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—S Marshall T/C 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  The last sentence of the 8.3 version (Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...) could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version (Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...) can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). Some1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. Loki (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Flow issues and redundancy in first para

As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning).

I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words:

Concerned that easier gender transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women, Rowling opposes proposed legislation to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

Sources
References Notes

I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation overkill ?

How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing?

• Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 re-do proposal

As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at #But sales of books grew, and more in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rowling's views have fuelled discussions about feminist views on transgender topics, freedom of speech, academic freedom, cancel culture and the relationship of authors to their fandom; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. She has been the target of widespread condemnation and insults, including death threats. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. Some performers and feminists have supported her, and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".

Sources
References Notes

Divided feminists

1. This scholarly source ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited the Ferber piece in the New Statesman about JKR.
2. Victoria, are you able to look in to this ? "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1.

   "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided."

   "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny."

   Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

   Looked at this. Basically Burt's paper refutes this article ("This is my TERF!") & is about lesbian feminism. The two quotes above are the only time Rowling is mentioned. But yes, it is about differences in feminist ideology, though the paper is not about Rowling. This might be a shareable link: [2] Victoria (tk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

   Just to add: I don't think this paper supports that Rowling's statements have divided feminists. Rather it's about the debate in feminism: Feminism is currently embroiled in a vociferous debate between gender-critical (GC) feminists who believe that human sex is real and determined by biology; that one’s sex matters sometimes; that gender is a social construction imposed on male and female bodies, which constrains female bodies in subordinate, caregiving roles and thus should be challenged; and that the constituency of feminism is female people (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Burt, 2020; Lawford-Smith, 2022a). On this view, women and girls have been historically oppressed based on their sex, partly through gender, and remain disadvantaged socially, economically, and politically. On the other side are feminists who accept some combination of the following claims: (1) that sex is not a biological fact but is assigned at birth on the basis of social norms (not biological reality); (2) that gender (identity) should be prioritized over sex for all purposes with no exceptions; and (3) that transwomen are women or even actually female (making it incorrect, for example, to refer to bepenised transwomen as having ‘male’ genitalia). On this view, women are oppressed based on gender identity not by their sex. To my knowledge, this latter group of feminists does not have a label; I will call them ‘trans-activist feminists’. Obviously Rowling is on one side of the debate, but she's hasn't caused it. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

   See #Paragraph 3 re-do proposal; I had already replaced the "divided feminists" wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of speech and cancel culture

1. Callie H. Burt above.
2. Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies
3. Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1
4. You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p.
5. How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247.
6. Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420.
7. HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701
8. Pape (already cited in article)

1. Burt should be available via TWL on Springer.
2. Keohane, ditto but on Sage

   Keohane - this might be the shareable link [3] Here's the abstract: This article argues that cancel culture rhetoric has become a key language for moral conflict in a polarized polity. A thematic rhetorical analysis of two prominent figures who claimed to be canceled, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, shows similar rhetorical moves despite different contexts. Drawing conclusions from their rhetorical strategies, this article contends that claiming to be canceled is an effective image repair maneuver in the contemporary, polarized political system. As Hawley and Rowling’s rhetoric shows, claiming to be canceled allows a speaker to chart a middle course between empowerment and disempowerment while identifying a transcendent context to take a stand against a defined moral ill. Likewise, it crafts a moment of urgency wherein the speaker and their audience can relate, prompting a moralizing call to action. In short, claiming to be canceled facilitates storytelling where character work can occur in the service of image repair and image promotion. It's about cancel culture, but I'd be hesitant to use it to support the sentence that Rowling has fuelled debates about cancel culture. Victoria (tk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

3. Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - here it is
4. Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL

   Here's the abstract: Cancel culture' is a term on which the internet is widely divided into sections. Initially meant to call out the wrong doings of the people in powerful positions and hold them accountable for their actions, is now also seen as a tool for further exploitation of the marginalized people. It is essential to distinguish between the various terminologies around it in order to understand the various standpoints around it. This research project tries to highlight the same. Social exclusion from the online space can have a significant impact on the mental health of people. Even though this has been discussed, it is essential to see cancel culture in the light of its impact on different hierarchies of the society and the rising intolerance on the online space in the Indian context. Hence, the objectives of the study are- Understanding the history of repression and social exclusion, which has now evolved into a new form known as cancel culture. Investigating the effects of cancel culture on the mental health of various groups. This study is a qualitative analysis of various accounts of cancel culture. The methodology consists of interviews of experts from the fields of psychology, political science and media and film studies. It also relies on the secondary data analysis of various journal articles, news articles and books. The theoretical framework of the study is Martha Nussbaum's theory of objectification and Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory and the result is consistent with it. The conclusion summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. the study's rationale is to comprehend the complexities of cancel culture in the light of intolerance and study the mental health implications for various sections of society in India. Paper does not mention Rowling. Can't get a shareable link, but if logged into TWL, this might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

5. Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking
6. Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar.
7. Turley > not sure I'd use him.

Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relationship of author to fandom

1. Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics

Academic freedom

1. Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p.

Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal

That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. Victoriaearle my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• "These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed. Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  S Marshall, I could just pick a few of the sources above to use, if that would help advance our finishing the job, but I hesitated to be the one to do that since I don't have full journal access ... hence I just gave a brief list. I hope you will continue, as we're almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The "sales increased in 2020" problem

First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake):

I did some checking, and book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since. So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also very early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place.

In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here.

---

So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of children's books sold by Bloomberg - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above.

(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source where she's not out-of-date.

---

The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated.

As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the Fantastic Beasts series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite.

---

Forbes states that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward."

It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. [4], say.

This is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's only British sales.

We need more recent sources on sales of Harry Potter - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence:

  The company, which publishes all of the author’s Harry Potter books, said its consumer publishing arm grew sales by 28% to £31.4m. The children’s division grew by 27% to £18.7m, with Bloomsbury highlighting Rowling’s titles as a “bestseller”... Nigel Newton, the Bloomsbury chief executive, said the books had remained bestsellers since Rowling published her views on her website last month. “Harry Potter has been very popular with families at home reading to each other and has been marvellous throughout this period,” he said.

The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on.

The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source.

The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The book sales sentence could be revised to make it more general; something along the lines of: Despite the controversy, the Harry Potter books have remained popular, and the game Hogwarts Legacy became a commercial success and received favorable reviews and praise from critics despite the calls for boycotts by the trans community. (could use some wordsmithing) Some1 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

References
References

Agree with Some1 and S Marshall on the original research aspect of refuting Pape, but also, please reference #Paragraph 3 re-do proposal in terms of any reframing needed. I would not use the sentence "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" at all, and if you track back to my original proposal, the idea was (to maintain neutrality) to convey that plenty of Rowling's work is moving forward (particularly the theme parks moving forward). Without getting in to any OR about book sales etc during Covid, the original sentence stated a simple fact (her products are not losing popularity). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's OR with Pape, but I'm not suggesting material for the article, I'm reviewing a source. We have a duty to not put misleading or false material into our articles.

Also, using present tense for facts sourced to 2020 is a problem. I think there's probably some evidence for Harry Potter remaining popular, but we can't use a source from 2020 and use the present tense. As I said, there's evidence they sold really well in 2023 (in Britain); if we could add in a source about America, at least, I'd buy it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

First we have to encourage S Marshall to continue with Draft 9 (both Victoria and I are swamped with IRL stuff) and I hope he will, since we are almost over the line/done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with that. Also it's a diversion. As of today, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is #7 on the New York Times best seller list, after 795 weeks on the list [5]. Plus it has a up arrow next to the listing, so it's up from last week or month. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 9

Earlier drafts at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20 and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19.

Folks, I'm done: through with J.K. Rowling, and honestly, through with featured articles. Rewriting this is like playing a game of bring me a rock. Let the first person to quibble draft #9 take responsibility for writing draft #10.

I've amended the text in several places, because I can't stomach publishing the words "opposes proposed" in a sentence of English, and neither should you. Neither the "believes" nor the "is concerned" camps are going to get their way.

Victoriaearle is 100% right when she says that Rowling hasn't divided feminists. Feminists are already divided on trans people and they have the attitude to Rowling that you'd expect from the flavour of feminism to which they adhere. I've cut that.

I'm also hereby permanently desisting from the bizarre and slightly unhinged practice of writing proposals as a comparison against historical text laid out in fixed-width 30em wide columns (!), and I certainly won't miss that. You'll just have to work with a conventional proposal in a format that works for everyone, including those of us who don't use a colossal font size.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights

Rowling has gender-critical views. She thinks that making it simpler to gender transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. Rowling opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".

Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited's view is that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".

Sources

Sources

References Notes Duggan, Jennifer (28 March 2021). "Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling". Children's Literature in Education. 53 (2): 147–168. doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9. PMC 9132366. PMID 35645426. S2CID 233661189. Konchar Farr, Cecilia, ed. (2022). Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1-4968-3931-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) Henderson, Tolonda. "A Coda: She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named". In Konchar Farr 2022. Pape, Madeleine (2022). "Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective". Law and Contemporary Problems. 85 (1): 215–240. Retrieved 29 March 2022. Pedersen, Sarah (2022). "'They've got an absolute army of women behind them': the formation of a women's cooperative constellation in contemporary Scotland". Scottish Affairs. 31 (1): 1–20. doi:10.3366/scot.2022.0394. S2CID 246762983. Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions. University of South Carolina Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv. ISBN 978-1-64336-088-1. OCLC 1142046769. S2CID 225791872. Schwirblat, Tatiana; Freberg, Karen; Freberg, Laura (2022). "Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media". In Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris; Freberg, Karen; Luttrell, Regina (eds.). The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021. ISBN 978-1800715981. Steinfeld, Jemimah (2020). "Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard". Index on Censorship. 49 (1): 34–35. doi:10.1177/0306422020917609. S2CID 216495541. Suissa, Judith; Sullivan, Alice (February 2021). "The gender wars, academic freedom and education" (PDF). Journal of Philosophy of Education. 55 (1): 55–82. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12549. S2CID 233646159. Whited, Lana A., ed. (2024). The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-2300-5. Borah, Rebecca Sutherland. "'Accio Jo!' Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom". In Whited (ed) 2024. Whited, Lana A. Introduction. In Whited (ed) 2024.

Discussion of Draft 9

I'm unwatching this talk page. Please don't ping me back here.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is the ping list from the FAR (minus Ealdgyth, those banned, and those already here): @4meter4, Ixtal, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Johnbod, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have been invited to contribute to this discussion before, but I shall not return as the environment here is so vile. This is despite the efforts of good faith editors to moderate it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC).

Aye

If you feel that this, with all its imperfections, is enough of an improvement over the current version to go in, sign below.

• As proposer:—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Victoria (tk) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Not perfect, but after working on this for months now, it's good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Per Loki's comment here, something went wonky in this version, so closer examination and reworking may be needed. My apologies to all for the premature ping, as I had not realized this happened until Loki pointed it out. We may be headed for Draft 10 after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't really been involved in this effort but I did see the ping and read the latest draft. I think it's quite good, and I don't think that a tenth draft is necessary. Thanks for everyone who worked on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

One quibble - shouldn't the first wikilink go to gender-critical feminism rather than a section of another page? (This doesn't affect the text itself and I doubt there would be objections, so I don't think this is significant.) Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's get it in, and work from there, with more normal editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think this is quite good. As to the concern below about I don't think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her I think the text of She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][30][31] insults, and threats, including death threats.[32][33] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[34][35][36] and Human Rights Campaign indicates quite a bit of the scale of criticism. Hog Farm _Talk 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  That sentence is actually the one I hesitate most over. It is lumping anything and everything negative said about her views, and by extension (even if unintentionally) equating the feminist critics and the internet trolls. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's good that that line is there but it's weird that it takes until the third paragraph to get to what should be one of the major takeaways from this section.

  And I also agree with Vanamonde that it's weird that all the criticism gets packed into a single sentence. Loki (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's been discussed for months. Sometime in the past however many months someone objected to x, y, z criticisms and instead we decided to focus on Rowling, who is the topic of the article, and to delineate what her beliefs are. If we want a weekly digest of what she says and the reaction to what she says, then a lot of time has been wasted. If we want to show what she believes, a sampling of what she's said, a sampling of criticism, and the factoid that her sales are still strong - as evidenced by the fact that of today she's still on the New York Time bestseller list after 700+ weeks. At the end of the day, word count has to be a consideration, and each one of these point have been discussed. I'm still happy with the draft as is. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good and I think we entered that territory about four drafts ago. Sorry, Loki, this started as a reply to your point but went into rant territory which isn't directed at you. Victoria (tk) 03:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nay

If you prefer the current version, or if you think it's essential to have yet another discussion about it before it goes in, sign below.

• I have not followed in any capacity the turbulent history of proposals for this section, but after an incidental visit from my watchlist I can't look at this not make a comment that this draft is unacceptable (it appears draft six originated most of the problems). "Gender critical" is a term utilized by transphobes to try and legitimatize their views, and the usage of it as the primary descriptor for Rowling is both a flagrant violation of neutrality and extremely concerning. The content talking about the criticism of her views being minimized to a sandwiched couple of sentences in the second paragraph whilst a very charitably picked quote follows her denial of being transphobic in the final paragraph. The result is a biased text that quietly does an excellent job legitimizing her transphobic narratives and I shudder at the thought of it being enshrined upon the live version of her Wikipedia page. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The term Gender-critical feminism is now widely used to refer to that set of views, and as such is the title of the Wikipedia article on it. The draft above also seems to have less quotes from her than the current version. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "TERF" is the common term, but think that can be dealt with with regular editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The "TERF" issue was covered in Draft 3, Draft 4, Draft 6 and Draft 6.1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The very article you linked to mentions that "gender critical feminism" is considered a dog whistle and problematic anti-trans rebranding, only further proving my point. I would also likely gather that the first sentence is Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism speaks to the fact there is tension between the two terms. I certainly believe she should be called a TERF herein, but I am pragmatic and doubt I will ever managed to get that through, and so suggest that either both be used in equal capacity or the wording avoid using either of them the topic sentence. There's plenty of other ways to word it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree it’s a white-wash. Gives space for her to deny being transphobic without ever stating there is a widespread view that she is? Surprised folks thought this would read as ok. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  To elaborate, by the time one gets to the last sentence about this topic having "permanently changed her 'relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves'", I don’t think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is a fair point; when I compare the current article text to this draft, a few things are better in the draft but enough other things are actually better in the current text that I don't feel confident that the draft actually represents an improvement over the current text. But I'm reluctant to stand in the way of something several people put so much time into. -sche (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I am not eager to either but the difficulty with a process like this is that if this version is accepted, any further changes will very likely be reverted on the grounds that consensus approved this version. So I feel like if I have objections, it’s now or never (and by never I mean, the next RFC years from now.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm particularly wondering why the "men, every last one of them" quote got removed. It was there until Draft 8, nobody objected to it, but it was removed suddenly for IMO no reason. Loki (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm ... thanks, Loki, I hadn't realized that. I don't understand why that happened either. Maybe we need a closer look at the whole Draft 9, in case we missed something else (which means I apologize for pinging the list prematurely ... ) Ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I commented above in a more non-commital way, but will now put myself firmly into the list of bullet-pointed Nays: I think this draft is worse than the current version in too many ways, including (as I had been going to say, and see someone has said above) in that it mashes feminist condemnation of her views and a random guy's death threat into one sentence. (I also think it'd be worthwhile to see if we can find any more, and any more recent, sources about book sales, because the iffy "Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew" line which this draft introduces appears misleading for reasons articulated further up this page.) I think we will need a draft 10. -sche (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There are a couple of things from the current version that I prefer over Draft 9 (and vice versa), so I'm hesitant to vote on the draft above. Using only Draft 9 and the current version (as of June 25, 2024), my preferred version would look something along the lines of the middle column below:

a combination of Draft 9 and the current version

Draft 9 Combination Current version as of June 25, 2024 Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling has gender-critical views. She thinks that making it simpler to gender transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. Rowling opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited's view is that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves". Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights Rowling's views on sex and gender have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded with a tweet that transgender people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". She mocked the phrase "people who menstruate" and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". Rowling opposes legislations that advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. She argues that making it simpler to transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. Rowling's statements have been called transphobic and she has been referred to as a TERF, a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Rowling has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise, and the Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD, an American LGBT media monitoring group, called her comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Rowling has rejected these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020, Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited asserted that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars... but also with her works themselves". Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender issues Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website in which she stated that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic, and she has been referred to as a TERF, a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". She has rejected these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood. Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron; and the charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. After the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 had come into force in April 2024, Rowling, who resides in Edinburgh, tested the law by posting on X a list of transgender women, and wrote that they were "men, every last one of them". Police Scotland stated it had not received any complaints over the posts and that "no action [would] be taken" as they were not illegal. Sources References Notes

Some1 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think this is a big improvement. I think the first paragraph might need a bit of tinkering - the change of the draft's topic sentence was critical but it's been defanged so much it's not even clear immediately whether she supports or opposes transgender rights. Otherwise, the formatting seems to make a lot more sense to me than either other option. Introduction, factual recounting of the origins of the controversy and her views, paragraph about the fact she's transphobic, paragraph about her defense against that characterization, and a concluding note about how this has impacted the legacy of the Harry Potter franchise. I still personally dislike she herself has to be given equal weight as the people characterizing her as transphobic and would like to see the paragraph about backlash be expanded, but I know I'm never winning that battle and don't want to commit the time investment to fighting this. Barring the first paragraph's wording, I would support this or something very similar to it over either the draft or current version. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• I really don't like this. I think it's even more tilted towards Rowling's POV than Draft 9. The mention of criticism is still buried in paragraph 3 but we're now much less clear about what exactly Rowling believes and give even more space to direct quotes from her personally. And we have that very bad first sentence which doesn't tell the reader anything useful about anything back at the top. Any good draft needs to describe what Rowling believes and why it's controversial right at the top, and this totally fails at doing so. Loki (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 10

Earlier drafts at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20 and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19.

Several editors have expressed concerns about Draft 9 above, so here's my crack at a Draft 10. Loki (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights

Rowling has gender-critical views, and because of these views opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler to gender transition. These views have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as anti-trans, though Rowling disputes this.

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made anti-trans statements. Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".

Rowling thinks that making it simpler to gender transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. Rowling opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation, insults, and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected.

Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".

Sources

Sources

References Notes Duggan, Jennifer (28 March 2021). "Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling". Children's Literature in Education. 53 (2): 147–168. doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9. PMC 9132366. PMID 35645426. S2CID 233661189. Konchar Farr, Cecilia, ed. (2022). Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1-4968-3931-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) Henderson, Tolonda. "A Coda: She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named". In Konchar Farr 2022. Pape, Madeleine (2022). "Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective". Law and Contemporary Problems. 85 (1): 215–240. Retrieved 29 March 2022. Pedersen, Sarah (2022). "'They've got an absolute army of women behind them': the formation of a women's cooperative constellation in contemporary Scotland". Scottish Affairs. 31 (1): 1–20. doi:10.3366/scot.2022.0394. S2CID 246762983. Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions. University of South Carolina Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv. ISBN 978-1-64336-088-1. OCLC 1142046769. S2CID 225791872. Schwirblat, Tatiana; Freberg, Karen; Freberg, Laura (2022). "Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media". In Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris; Freberg, Karen; Luttrell, Regina (eds.). The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021. ISBN 978-1800715981. Steinfeld, Jemimah (2020). "Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard". Index on Censorship. 49 (1): 34–35. doi:10.1177/0306422020917609. S2CID 216495541. Suissa, Judith; Sullivan, Alice (February 2021). "The gender wars, academic freedom and education" (PDF). Journal of Philosophy of Education. 55 (1): 55–82. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12549. S2CID 233646159. Whited, Lana A., ed. (2024). The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-2300-5. Borah, Rebecca Sutherland. "'Accio Jo!' Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom". In Whited (ed) 2024. Whited, Lana A. Introduction. In Whited (ed) 2024.

Changelog (relative to Draft 9)

• First paragraph is now a true summary, including a mention of the criticism. Most of what was the content of the first paragraph has been split out into what's now the third paragraph.
• Swapped the order of the history paragraph and the paragraph about Rowling's views, because I feel the context of the history is important to understand both the views and the criticism of them.
• Linked "gender-critical" to gender-critical feminism instead of feminist views on transgender topics
• Re-added line about "men, every last one of them".
• Described Maya Forstater's views as "anti-trans" to match the source.
• Moderated the description of sales to "unaffected" rather than "grew": both statements are supported by the source, and "unaffected" seems more reliable in view of the fact that sales in general grew a lot over the same time period.

Discussion of Draft 10

Could probably delete and because of these views opposes and just say "and opposes". -sche (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to do that because it's important to be clear to the reader that she holds those views because of the more general views. These aren't just a bunch of unrelated opinions: she opposes all that legislation because of her trans-exclusionary/gender-critical/whatever views. Loki (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that you dropped the mention of the "COVID-19 lockdown" since that refers to widely varying time periods depending on where the reader is from, and ended a long time ago in most places, leaving people to wonder if something changed afterward. I do think "asserted" in the last sentence should be replaced per WP:SAID, as that word can be easily read as casting doubt on the validity of the claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No

As stated above I remain opposed to the usage of gender critical alone, even with the changed link. It should be worded to include more direct terminology in addition to gender critical or to use neither. The rest of the lead paragraph is good, simple and objective. As before, I don't like the way opposition to her views incorporated into the fourth paragraph. Ostensibly, this is the paragraphed dedicated to the pushback against her views, yet it begins by noting discussions sparked about "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom". You have to dig into the middle three sentences to get anything about pushback against her views, and even then it's exceptionally vague. This does not seem to be adequate representation of the fact she has been considered transphobic by many people, something I cannot imagine is in dispute (and is mentioned in the lead paragraph anyways), and even besides that I would dare anyone to suggest "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" are the most notable aspects of the reception to her views. Why are they frontloaded in this way? This is what I like more about the live version and combined suggestion above. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)