MovieChat Forums > J.K. Rowling Discussion > Ralph Fiennes Says Abuse Directed at J.K...

Ralph Fiennes Says Abuse Directed at J.K. Rowling Over Trans Controversy Is “Disgusting”

posted 2 years ago by Satan2016 (25525)
13 replies | jump to latest

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/harry-potter-ralph-fiennes-defends-jk-rowling-1235248133/

Fiennes, who played the villainous Lord Voldemort across four Harry Potter films, told The New York Times Magazine that the “verbal abuse” Rowling receives online is “disgusting” and “appalling.”

Added Fiennes: “I mean, I can understand a viewpoint that might be angry at what she says about women. But [she’s] not some obscene, über-right-wing fascist. It’s just a woman saying, ‘I’m a woman and I feel I’m a woman and I want to be able to say that I’m a woman.’ And I understand where she’s coming from. Even though I’m not a woman.”

The controversy began in June 2020 when the author of the mega-popular Harry Potter books first tweeted about an op-ed piece regarding “people who menstruate” and mocked the story for not using the word “women.” The tweet generated backlash, which prompted the author to repeatedly and ever-more adamantly defend herself, eventually elaborating on her views in a lengthy essay.

Fiennes, who has defended Rowling on earlier occasions, praised her Harry Potter franchise for giving a voice to young people. “J.K. Rowling has written these great books about empowerment, about young children finding themselves as human beings. It’s about how you become a better, stronger, more morally centered human being,” he said.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I don't have a problem with JK Rowling's opinions on trans and women issues, but she has taken it a bit too far with the constant tweeting and online fighting. She hasn't found much success as an author outside the HP universe and turned herself into an attention-seeking, controversy-sparking social media personality instead.
Nevertheless, Ralph Fiennes is right. The rest of the HP cast treated Rowling as if she was a right-wing fascist to make themselves look like progressive social justice fighters, which makes them much worse than she is. Especially members of the young cast like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe, whose acting skills are mediocre, owe JK Rowling their careers and should have been more grateful to her.

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 2 years ago

Hey there,
I tend to agree with you on almost all counts but one: how do Radcliffe and Watson owe Rowling their acting careers? I mean, she wrote the material the films were based on, but didn't direct any of them and wasn't the casting director either (but maybe she greenlit their casting and I'm not aware of it...).
How much can we say a young actor owes their career to the author of the book their first film is based on?

[–] Abed303 (282) 2 years ago

Rowling might have not made casting decisions (maybe she did, I don't know either), but I think it's safe to say that without her books Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson would not be household names. They owe their level of fame and financial success to the fact they were cast in that franchise.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Rowling insisted they cast Brits, without that intervention Radcliffe et al would be nobodies.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

If the wokies weren’t so demonically hostile there would be no need for Rowling to keep tweeting. She’s doing the right thing - tripling down on whatever they don’t want to hear. Woke bullies should never be appeased nor apologised to, they should be beaten into the ground like a tent peg.

[–] maul (1635) 2 years ago

Is there a logical fallacy for when you accuse those who disagree with you of being evil, or you attempt to lump them into some other maligned group to taint their character? If there isn't, there should be.

[–] Evoken (1402) 2 years ago

Poisoning the well fallacy

[–] maul (1635) 2 years ago

Yeah, probably a combination of poisoning the well, guilt by association, false dilemma, along with some appeal to emotion. Regardless, there's obviously a very specific type of fallacious moralistic grandstanding these people use to try to immediately discredit opponents of their ideology.

[–] Abed303 (282) 2 years ago

Poisoning the well fallacy involves attacking a person before they've made their argument. If the attack happens after the argument is made It would be ad hominem: abusive.

Accusing someone of being evil in response to their argument is ad hominem: abusive, when an arguer attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing that person.

Trying to lump someone into a group could be ad hominem: circumstantial, where an arguer alludes to circumstances affecting a person that predisposes them to argue in a certain way. If the goal of the association is to attack the character of the person though, it's still ad hominem: abusive.

The last form of ad hominem is tu quoque, where an arguer attempts to show that an opposing arguer is a hypocrite in some way.

All of these, including poisoning the well, are fallacies of relevance, where an argument's premise is logically irrelevant its conclusion.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

He's not wrong at all.

[–] Popcorngal (4788) 2 years ago

I agree with him.

[–] Whom (528) 2 years ago

Oh geez Ralph, stay out of that mangled mash mash up of monkey manure and quietly go about your career as you were.

[–] Destinata (3326) 2 years ago

Ah, I fell for Ralph Fiennes in Quiz Show, and I've loved him ever since. I'm particularly glad to see him stand up for biological women not being erased.

BTW, "cis" is a non-word that allows biology deniers to more easily deny biology. It's a little awkward to call some people "biological women" and others "transgender women." It's a little too "truthy."