Actor. Originally a comic actor, later moved into drama. Played that giant dude with a beard who lived in a shed near Hogwarts in the Harry Potter movies.Who the hell of Robbie Coltrane and why should we care?
Actor. Originally a comic actor, later moved into drama. Played that giant dude with a beard who lived in a shed near Hogwarts in the Harry Potter movies.Who the hell of Robbie Coltrane and why should we care?
No, no...all politicians are already Slytherin.I was starting to get worried we would have like actual Slytherin vs Ravenclaw political parties rising up or some other madness. LOL
They don't mean that one, they mean Fenrir Greyback. You know, the one who spread the curse and liked to attack children in particular?The werewolf was their friend, a good guy who actively tried to keep himself from harming anyone when he would uncontrollably turn and didn't want to infect or kill anyone. He taught Harry how to fight off the dementors, which saved both Harry's and Harry's Godfather Sirius life. The Werewolf gave his life fighting against the Death Eaters ( the Nazis). to protect the kids. Harry was The werewolf's son's Godfather.
...and how did the other house elves feel about that?and used his new found freedom to work at Hogwarts where he was paid and could come and go as he pleased.
That just makes it transphobic *AND* racist.So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....
................ Like really guys? THIS, is what everyone is mad about? Someone dressed in what is essentially ninja garb to disguise himself because the only thing is shows is your eyes?
Nu uh, I could've won the war, Robbie. *plffft* I'm gonna tell my big brother on you.Phew, Robbie Coltrane, a man born five years after the end of the Second World War, has stepped in to confirm that none of the people unhappy with JK Rowling could have won the war.
Insightful.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.That just makes it transphobic *AND* racist.
Judging by the first sentence in that post, I think it's intended as sarcasm, yes.Please tell me this is sarcasm.
Ah I see now. I skipped over his responses to everyone else.Judging by the first sentence in that post, I think it's intended as sarcasm, yes.
Although "dangerous person hiding under a burqa" is a trope that crops up in quite a few racist tabloids, as an excuse to restrict what people can wear and/or kick people out of the country. Not saying that Rowling is appealing to that trope, I haven't read the book and don't think that she would.
Sounds suspiciously like a paedophile.Played that giant dude with a beard who lived in a shed near Hogwarts in the Harry Potter movies.
So, bit more info. It was not as far as I could see a burqa, but the killer does appear to use women's clothing as a disguise, and at one point lies about being a cross-dresser.So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....
I think it's supposed to be: "The killer is cis, but pretends to be a woman in order to (gain access to women's spaces (like bathrooms and ) kill (them), furthering the HATEFUL myth that trans women have ulterior motives (and just want to peep on women and girls while they change, and maybe beat them at sports)"That killer is trans. HOLD UP!
That's the line?
But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.I think it's supposed to be: "The killer is cis, but pretends to be a woman in order to gain access to women's spaces (like bathrooms) and kill them, furthering the HATEFUL myth that trans women have ulterior motives and just want to peep on women and girls while they change."
Because, apparently, if your villain has a real counterpart, it must be wish fulfillment or reveal some bigotry on the part of the author.But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
Welcome to 2020.But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
I think one of the biggest issues with the way the "trans debate" has translated into popular culture, especially in the UK, is that it's been framed as an issue of identity when in fact it is an issue of rights.From a biologically sexed female, having a biologically sexed male, regardless of gender, then dictating what your own identity means and dismissing a huge part of what it means to be a woman as being not important is not going to be accepted well. While I disagree that trans are broken or need to be fixed, I see her point about dismissing what it means to be a woman to a biologically sexed female. Trying to redefine that to now include penises doesn't really work for most women because that is also removing a huge part of our identity to be able to do so.
Since this thread seems determined to stay on topic, I'm going to point out that, in a previous book in this series, Rowling had her protagonist threaten a transwoman with rape in a way that was clearly supposed to be funny because transwomen are gross.Of course, in a slightly more sinister way, perhaps the intent was also to turn more anger at Rowling.
I mean, most of them aren't communists, so I agree.Phew, Robbie Coltrane, a man born five years after the end of the Second World War, has stepped in to confirm that none of the people unhappy with JK Rowling could have won the war.
There's kind of a history of serial killers in fiction also cross-dressing to show how freakish and disturbing they are; Psycho, Sleepaway Camp, Silence of the Lambs. Heck, even Ace Ventura did it. Typically male to female. Correlating cross-dressing or being a trans woman to being dangerous or a freak, something to gaze at with suspicion. And I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's an extremely harmful trope.Okay someone explain this to me because Im not following. JK wrote a book. Sure. In it is a killer. Great. That killer kills women. Of course. That killer is trans. HOLD UP!
That's the line? If the argument is that its current year and that's offensive, why isn't the whole thing offensive? Would it have been okay to kill women if they killer was cis? Or would killing men have been okay if the killer was trans? and why is killing okay? Would it have been okay if the trans villain was simply a rapist or assaulter?
And the whole idea that serial killers target only women is mostly a myth - some famous loons have, absolutely, but its mostly a Hollywood trope rather than reflective of real life victims. Not to say women aren't the majority, the stat I looked up said 65% victims are women. But most serial killers kill both genders fairly regularly with the outliers being the mono-gender assaulters.
The main problem being is that is yet another trans person being portrayed as a villain. The fact that JK Rowling has a hate boner for trans people does not help either. Even though there are more positive examples of trans people, you still rarely ever see one in a heroic role or one that's not to be seen as a constant complete victim.But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
I haven't read the book, so Im legit curious - is the killer citing being trans as the reason they're a killer? As in if they said "I am a trans woman" they expect everyone to know that means they're a serial killer? Or is being trans just an aspect of their personality, not necessarily connected with the killings? In the same way liking Chipotle over Qudoba is a personality trait, but not one associated with serial killers.There's kind of a history of serial killers in fiction also cross-dressing to show how freakish and disturbing they are; Psycho, Sleepaway Camp, Silence of the Lambs. Heck, even Ace Ventura did it. Typically male to female. Correlating cross-dressing or being a trans woman to being dangerous or a freak, something to gaze at with suspicion. And I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's an extremely harmful trope.
It's possible for a trans person to be a serial killer without them being trans factoring into why they're a serial killer, but seeing as this has never been done before, and seeing as Rowling's history is what it is, I'm not expecting it this time around either.
The character isn't actually transgender and the extent of his cross dressing is wearing a pink coat and a wig while hiding in a van.The main problem being is that is yet another trans person being portrayed as a villain. The fact that JK Rowling has a hate boner for trans people does not help either. Even though there are more positive examples of trans people, you still rarely ever see one in a heroic role or one that's not to be seen as a constant complete victim.
I don't even know who Dan is, and yet i want to slap him.
And Harry's asian girlfriend named Cho Chang.Let's not forget her hook-nosed goblins that run the economy from the shadows!
Well, i found the supposed controversial excerpt for more context:So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....
................ Like really guys? THIS, is what everyone is mad about? Someone dressed in what is essentially ninja garb to disguise himself because the only thing is shows is your eyes?
I don't even know who Dan is, and yet i want to punch him.