Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

[Professional Noticer]

Sadly, a lot of people do care. According to this article from 2020, 28% of black respondents and 17% of Democratic respondents had their vote influenced by a celebrity (compared to 12% overall and 9% of Republican voters). It's why politicians seek celebrity endorsements: they know that people this stupid exist and are allowed to vote, and they want to take full advantage of it.

Edit: Changed "voters" to "respondents" because I'm not sure this 1000-person poll is a representative sample, but regardless, that's a lot of idiots.

You are right, but I meant it more as "I personally don't care". I am (sadly) fully aware that it works and its a huge driving factor for voters.

I wish we lived in a world where people thought about the ideas and chose the ones that resonate with them the most and not just vote with what your favorite actor is telling you to vote for. Social media is now a politics battleground because of this.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

I feel the need to point out (because I hate US politics in general) that part of the reason for the asymmetry on celebrity influence is that Republicans have for many years now coded hollyweird celebrities as out-group in terms of elite cue preferences. Even the article linked about talked about Kid Rock and Ted Nugent as influential to Republicans.

Talking heads and pundits like Alex Jones, as well as Republican Party figures themselves like Trump, are more influential in driving engagement and swaying opinions on topics for the conservative half-ish of the United States, but taking cue from elites is common in all societies, it's not something you can escape from. There's arguments made that its an evolutionary built in-bias, choosing a cue is more efficient energetically than trying to process all the information about the world you receive constantly.

Notably though, elite cue preferences are much more important in driving engagement on a topic than changing opinions that are strongly held. People will often ignore elite source cues if they are already strongly engaged on a topic.

The backlash against trans people is definitely driving people away from Democrats and lefty politicians in general. People peaking is creating opinions that elite cues now push actively against. You can convince someone who has never had a lot of direct experience with trannies, and hasn't looked into it, to live and let live. But as soon as people start getting first hand experience, then its an exercise in how much doublethink a person can do before they stop trusting their chosen elites on the subject. And once trust is broken on one issue, it can bleed outward into broader skepticism.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Two very different articles on Watson.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2025/09/25/emma-watson-has-quit-acting-but-did-she-ever-really-start/

https://archive.ph/aVmpP

What was your reaction to hearing the tragic news that Emma Watson, that great thespian of our age, has stepped away from acting? Did you wail and gnash your teeth? Are you crying out for the Samaritans to set up an emergency telephone hotline, as they did when Robbie Williams left Take That? No? Me neither.
I have nothing against Watson per se: she seems like a relatively pleasant and well-adjusted person, given that she grew up amid Harry Potter mania. But I was definitely more befuddled than heartbroken by her earnest announcement this week that acting was no longer for her. Not because of the art itself, you’ll be relieved to hear, but because she found the promotional responsibilities “soul-destroying”.

Adding to my confusion, this brave departure from public life came via a mini press tour: an interview with magazine Hollywood Authentic and a two-hour-40-minute discussion with Jay Shetty on his podcast On Purpose. Perhaps we should call this the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle logic. Only by doing more publicity can you really take a stand against the evils of the press.
Watson has been a celebrity figure for most of my life, but I can’t claim to have been profoundly moved by any of her performances. The early Potter films feature such appallingly wooden child acting (as the cast have themselves admitted) that they almost become an avant-garde rebellion against naturalism. Watson seems to be in a competition with herself to rattle through her lines as fast as humanly possible, and with the most peculiar stresses, so that only one word in 10 is actually comprehensible.

Nor did she summon new, Meryl Streep-like transformative powers in her few subsequent movies, such as irritating teen drama The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Sofia Coppola’s true-crime caper The Bling Ring, the Russell Crowe-led biblical misfire Noah, or plodding tech thriller The Circle.

We last saw Watson on screen in 2019, in Greta Gerwig’s acclaimed Little Women, although it was co-stars Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet who walked away with that one.

Plenty of actors make a career out of playing the same role, so it’s not a total deal-breaker that Watson never really diverges from “nicely brought up girl from Oxfordshire”. But it does make it puzzling that she was apparently so emotionally drained by giving everything to her art that she’s had to step back. She said in the Shetty interview that she was forced to revisit “painful stuff in my life” in order to film Beth March’s death scene in Little Women.
To which most of us would surely say… and? Isn’t this what actors do? They’re either so brilliant at accessing another character that they can take on that person’s emotions, or they draw on their own experiences to reach that particular state. Watson, it seems, struggles to do either.
Which is perfectly fine – God knows we’re not short of actors. But it does beg the questions: why exactly is Watson doing lengthy interviews to share her epiphany that attention is terrible, and what seismic change are we really going to see?

She has always been famous for being famous rather than for her actual acting, thanks to her association with Harry Potter and with Disney juggernaut Beauty and the Beast, so her newfound anti-commerce stance is a little hard to take.

The cynical among us may be wondering what exactly she’s promoting, even as she insists that she’s now far too enlightened to sell anything. She did say in the Hollywood Authentic interview that she would consider taking a role behind the camera, so perhaps this is a soft launch for Hermione the director.
Meanwhile, the jaw-dropping news from Shetty’s podcast is that Watson wrote what sounds like an absolutely excruciating one-woman show (which I would 100 per cent watch, from behind a cushion) while studying at Oxford University. It’s based on her journals chronicling her experience of “transitioning from being a full-time actress and activist to trying to move home and be a normal student and attend a normal university as a super-famous person”.
Watson even, she says, reads out parts of the play to people so they can understand what it’s like to be her. Shetty, who was one of the lucky few to get to read this masterpiece, sees great future potential in the project and professes that “anyone can relate to it”. I remain sceptical: is being a Hollywood celebrity worth an estimated £60m suddenly navigating life among the Muggles really the most relatable subject matter?

But her whole interview tour – the main subject of which is, essentially, the great trial of being Emma Watson – does feel like a canny set-up for the announcement of this tearfully confessional play’s premiere. Producers, of course, would snap it up, although that could test Watson’s assiduous anti-promo policy.
She might feel that her art is too precious to be shared, so perhaps she is preparing to re-enter the fray as an activist. She has previously campaigned for gender equality, Gaza, environmental causes, and trans rights. Interestingly, though, speaking to Shetty she took a woolly line on JK Rowling, saying “I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with”, then adding that she wasn’t currently commenting on Rowling or the issue “because the way that the conversation is being had feels really painful to me”.

Of course, we must not forget that Watson, with her younger brother Chris, is also a budding gin entrepreneur: the pair launched their brand Renais in 2023. This sustainable gin is flavoured with recycled grand cru grape skins, making it suitably virtuous.

But celebrity-created or endorsed spirits are an overcrowded market, already conquered by the likes of Ryan Reynolds, David Beckham and George Clooney, so that might not be Watson’s retirement plan.
But whatever she chooses for her courageous post-acting career, it does seem that Watson has finally found the one role that she can really nail: being herself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/emma-watson-harry-potter-jay-shetty-podcast-j-k-rowling-b2833646.html

https://archive.ph/ZEVOQ

Somewhere far from the extended Hogwarts cinematic universe, Emma Watson has been living. Or perhaps more accurately: pausing; “self-partnering”; the kind of abstracted living that only the extremely famous – and extremely observed – can pull off well. Since that curious 2012–2014 transition period when she began edging out from under the shadow of Hermione Granger, Watson has been engaged in a slow, studious becoming. For a while, it seemed she was trying to prove she could be what everyone wanted: perfect. An idealised woman – earnest, intentional, and soothing, all of which seem to come naturally to her – but an activist too.
Being a woman in the public eye trying to do the right thing has meant that her appearances and statements have often been received with a friction that she herself seldom gives off. As she transitioned from child star to adult celebrity activist, she faced accusations of “white feminism”, questions about her name appearing in the Panama Papers, and demands that her activism be more pointed, more radical, more active. None of it ever entirely stuck. This may be because she comes across as poised, elegant, and relatively well-informed. Or it may be, perhaps, out of a collective sympathy for a woman who had such an unconventional childhood (or rather lacked one altogether, having spent it making and promoting the Harry Potter film franchise). Simultaneously, there was a public feeling that maybe she was just too nice, somehow too perfect. Watson, though, is – like all of us – imperfect, as an activist and as a human. What matters is that she seems to be owning that.
Now, it appears she’s found an equilibrium: she’s returned as a fully-formed Emma Watson, on a single-podcast press tour to promote nothing but herself. A self that is, as one response to her exhaustive new interview on Jay Shetty’s On Purpose podcast notes, a grown-up version of Hermione: “warm, kind and considerate”. Over the course of nearly three hours, she opens up on everything from acting to trans rights to Palestine. It’s an interview of pragmatism and contemplation – about as explosive as a wet firework.

The interview may be the crowning moment for Watson as the “people’s princess” for millennials. She is, in some ways, distinctly royal (it even occurs to me, watching the interview, how much she now resembles Kate Middleton) – carefully eloquent, slowly working her way through her answers, aware of how they will appear once transcribed and dissected. And yet she’s more human than the royals, more – could it be? – relatable.

It’s hard not to feel some kinship when Watson tells Shetty about not being able to find the work “family” she craved after growing up in a close-knit film cast. “I came to work looking for friendship and that was a very painful experience for me outside of Harry Potter and in Hollywood – like, bone-creakingly painful,” says the actor, who hasn’t appeared in a film since 2019’s Little Women. In a tearful moment, she adds: “The shattering of those expectations broke me. In a way, I’m proud that it did because I guess that means I have something left to break.” Her comments about not being married too felt refreshing and unperformative, particularly for a podcast guest in 2025. (“I’m just so happy not to be divorced yet… I think that we’re being pressured and forced into this thing that I believe is a kind of miracle. I might never be worthy of it.”) That vulnerability continued when discussing her struggles with ADHD, her driving ban (unfortunately quite funny, when the quote “my shame is everywhere” is paired with her crime – driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone), and her reasons for stepping back from acting.
Then, she veers into more contentious territory, namely the two lightning rods of her public image: trans rights and Israel. When the conversation turns to JK Rowling – the author whose strident anti-transgender rhetoric has led many to call for boycotts of Harry Potter media – Watson, who has longstandingly voiced support for trans rights, is careful but candid. She says she still “treasures Jo [Rowling] and the person that I had personal experiences with.” Both Rowling’s anti-trans activism and Watson’s historically close relationship with her can exist, she says: “I will never believe that one negates the other and that my experience of that person I don’t get to keep and cherish.” While the remarks have drawn criticism from some circles, largely based on out-of-context headline quotes, there’s a much-needed diplomacy to them. What stands out most, I think, is her openness to future dialogue. “I think the thing I’m most upset about is that a conversation was never made possible,” she adds.

She is, in some ways, distinctly royal – carefully eloquent, slowly working her way through her answers, aware of how they will appear. And yet she’s more human than the royals, more – could it be? – relatable

If that didn’t put her decades of militant media training to work, a discussion about Palestine certainly did. Shetty brings up her 2022 Instagram post expressing solidarity with Palestinians, a relatively benign act that nonetheless drew condemnation from Israeli officials. At the time, Danny Danon, the former science minister in Netanyahu’s government and Israeli ambassador to the UN, tweeted: “10 points from Gryffindor for being an antisemite.” Watson now reflects that “what concerned me at the time was the way that label [antisemitism] was used. Even now, I see that playing out – where people don’t feel like they can talk about what’s happening safely.”
Some could argue (and have already argued) that Watson is still trying to have it both ways with her answers to difficult questions. But maybe that says as much about her as it does the state of things – that politics has become so scorched and exhausting that even a soft, balanced tone now feels like something worth clinging to.

Watson has taken her fair share of beatings online for trying to introduce nuance into conversations that reward a degree of spice; for speaking carefully to potentially appeal to centrists, to the undecided, to the disappointed and unbothered. It’s no surprise, then, that she’s leaning harder than ever into a kind of heartfelt, humanist framework.
A decade ago, the internet might have called her quotes twee, privileged, a performance of thoughtfulness rather than the real thing. But in the jagged climate of the mid-2020s, there’s something quietly resonant about a former child star still making an effort to get it right. She may have stepped away from acting and distanced herself from the machine that raised her, but with this interview, one thing feels newly certain: Emma Watson is the most compelling figure to emerge from the Potter cast. Not because she’s perfect but because she’s trying.

Even the Independent comments section couldn't stomach that.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

The interview may be the crowning moment for Watson as the “people’s princess” for millennials. She is, in some ways, distinctly royal (it even occurs to me, watching the interview, how much she now resembles Kate Middleton) – carefully eloquent, slowly working her way through her answers, aware of how they will appear once transcribed and dissected. And yet she’s more human than the royals, more – could it be? – relatable.

What is this person smoking?

Not just comparing to Kate, but also Diana??? Emma Watson? Really?

 

[Plum Smuggler]

Our TERF Qween is is really basking in it.

The gender fanatics are never satisfiedNot only do they demonise dissent, they demonise not demonising dissent

Artillery RowBy
Seán Atkinson
27 September, 2025

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

They showed up acting like they wanted peace, but one could swear that they want total domination. That’s trans activism in a nutshell — “comply fully or else.”

On Wednesday the 24th of September, Emma Watson, better known as Hermione Granger to half the planet, sat down for a two and a half hour chinwag with Jay Shetty on his podcast. Somewhere between the mindfulness waffle and the self help hocus-pocus, her relationship with J.K. Rowling came up. Emma, all wide-eyed sincerity, said that despite their “differences,” she still loves Rowling:

It’s my deepest wish that people who don’t agree with me will still love me, and I hope I can keep loving them back.

A nice sentiment, but let’s be honest, since Rowling began speaking out for women, children, and gays being steamrolled by “trans rights,” Emma and the rest of the Harry Potter trio have nailed their colours to the mast. And not their own colours either, they’ve been chanting slogans the way Alvin and the Chipmunks spew out knock-off Top 10 covers: loud, soulless, and painfully out of tune.

Back in 2020, Emma dutifully joined the circus with a tweet declaring:

Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are.

When later interviewed by a trans-identified male, she insisted that any woman uncomfortable sharing an intimate space with a biological male should “go, go and speak, go and learn” and “look into the whites of their eyes” — a line so creepy you’d think it was written by Dracula.

This is the classic celebrity stance: endless sympathy for the six-foot lad in the changing room, zero thought for the teenage girl forced to strip in front of him. They’ll chant “Protect the Dolls” till they’re hoarse, but never once ask who’s protecting the Sandie Peggies of this world, women losing jobs and livelihoods just for requesting privacy. It’s easy to moralise about public toilets when you’ve a bodyguard waiting outside to mind your handbag. If only it was as easy to flush away this celebrity waffle as it is to flush what they’re full of.

Then there was the 2022 BAFTAs. Emma marched up on stage, grinned, and started her speech with, “I’m here for all the witches,” before mouthing “bar one.” Many of Watson’s admirers took this to be a sly dig at Rowling — because nothing would scream female empowerment like sneering at the woman who gave you your career.

By now it’s clear that Watson is one of the most visible celebs flying the flag for trans ideology. But if the last few days have shown us anything, it’s that unless you’re fully on your knees, swinging the incense, and worshipping at the altar of the new gender religion, you’ll be cast out just the same.

Because despite all her apparent digs at Rowling, Emma’s passing admission that she still feels love for the woman who created her most famous role was enough to get her branded a TERF. That’s the game. Yesterday it was Rowling. Today it’s Watson. Tomorrow it’ll be whoever blinks out of sync with the madhouse.

So here’s my advice to anyone still kneeling at the rainbow altar: take the pronouns out of your bio, gerr’up off your knees and stand up straight. One wrong move and you won’t just be excommunicated, you’ll be burnt at the digital stake, labelled a heretic faster than you can say “non-binary neopronouns.”

Since Emma’s comment, trans-activists have stormed BlueSky like it was the Western Front, bayonets out and trench whistles blowing. Watson’s been called a fascist, accused of begging Hitler for affection, and had every part of her life ripped apart in the search for proof she’s irredeemable. Her whiteness, her femaleness, her acting, even the fact she didn’t want to wear a corset in Beauty and the Beast, all suddenly evidence she’s a danger to society.

Former Green Party hopeful Sophie Molly popped up to brand her a transphobe. A user called moby dickgirl (yes, really) accused her of complicity in fascism. And in the most deranged twist of all, some anime profile lad typed in Spanish, “Emma Watson (or so I hope so)” alongside an image of a woman about to be shot. Normal behaviour, apparently.

Not a single slogan she parroted, not one mantra she regurgitated, has been there to defend her. She’s now getting a taste of what Rowling’s been living with for years: pure, unfiltered bile, the demonic kind you couldn’t make up if you tried.

We’ve got to protect all the witches from this nonsense

But here’s the thing, despite Emma happily throwing Rowling under the Knight Bus, we’ve got to protect all the witches from this nonsense. Forgiveness isn’t required. Solidarity is. Because if they can do this to Emma bleedin’ Watson, who spent years licking the boots of the cult, then what chance has anyone else?

And maybe, just maybe, the onlookers, the fellow disciples of gender ideology, will finally cop on to the truth that no matter how loud you chant, no matter how hard you kneel, it will never, ever be enough.

https://archive.ph/5z4Rx

 

[Candidate No 7]

Not just comparing to Kate, but also Diana??? Emma Watson? Really?

Right, well... I'm not sure how old you are but Diana was actually a laughing stock in the UK until she died and was bizarrely canonised. After her Panorama interview backfired and Charles divorced her, ending her hopes to somehow become queen one day, she dropped most of the charities she was patronising and went cavorting with the scion of a weapon dealers family. Famously, several newspapers had unflattering content about her on the day she died and had to grovel about it.

Every now and then I wonder if the mass hysteria that followed her death would have been impossible or much worse with social media.

 

[Dragged Into Sunlight]

It's kind of ironic that the only one of the bunch that actually stood up for the woman that was responsible for all the fame and money they enjoy was the guy playing the evil snake characcter. I hope she sends Tom Felton a gift basket for having integrity.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

Right, well... I'm not sure how old you are but Diana was actually a laughing stock in the UK until she died and was bizarrely canonised. After her Panorama interview backfired and Charles divorced her, ending her hopes to somehow become queen one day, she dropped most of the charities she was patronising and went cavorting with the scion of a weapon dealers family. Famously, several newspapers had unflattering content about her on the day she died and had to grovel about it.

Every now and then I wonder if the mass hysteria that followed her death would have been impossible or much worse with social media.

I was quite young when she died and was only aware of the mass outpouring of grief from around the world after (also not British).

Still think it is bizarre to call Emma Watson "the people's princess" is bananas. She's barely relevant anymore except as she relates to JK Rowling.

 

[hind matches ltd]

It's kind of ironic that the only one of the bunch that actually stood up for the woman that was responsible for all the fame and money they enjoy was the guy playing the evil snake characcter. I hope she sends Tom Felton a gift basket for having integrity.

Not to downplay Felton, but, from the kids, Evanna Lynch (who played Luna) was the only one at the time who stood up for Rowling. She's also a Lumos ambassador, one of Rowling's charities (along with Bonnie Wright, who played Ginny. The Phelps twins are also still in Potter properties. However, Lynch's the only one I remember actually making a statement.), so I assume they're still on good terms and she hasn't changed her tune.

 

[Candidate No 7]

This is not going to be popular here but I think everyone including JKR is being absurd about Emma Watson. She never really understood any of this and never attacked Rowling. She and the others sure owed her gratitude but not to agree with her. (The first HP book even preaches about standing up to your friends when necessary!) None of them are terribly bright or courageous for sure, but they didn't particularly stand out.

Honestly, I have no idea how long it would have taken me to twig if I'd grown up amidst this organised insanity. Most people in the TERF/GC movement started out trans-friendly before they figure out what's what.

 

[News Enjoyer]

The most pro-trans position Rowling likely ever took was believing in ”live and let live” for (adult) troons at one point, as a lot of people did before the tranny menace became fully visible in the mid-to-late 2010s.

Emma Watson did not just content herself with ”live and let live". She has openly supported the tranny agenda for years, including by regularly donating to the child castration organization Mermaids. According to Emma, trans people are who they say they are (this means TWAW and TMAM) and that they should be able to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are (this means that you're a bigot if you question why there's a hulking she-man in a dress in the women's locker room).

Most importantly, she has repeatedly thrown Rowling under the bus for tranny clout. She had nothing to say at the height of Rowling receiving death and rape threats. But now that the tide is turning, she suddenly wants to let everyone know that she really treasures ”Jo" and hopes she can keep loving her? Those are not the words of a soon-to-hit-peak-trans normie. They're the words of a cowardly turncoat who can sense that the wind is blowing in the opposite direction and now hopes nobody's going to notice her U-turn (everyone noticed).

Daniel and Emma are both currently trying to backtrack from their ”unbudging" pro-trans/anti-Rowling stance (in Daniel's case, by discreetly removing his TWAW nonsense essay from the Trevor Project's website). They are not the first pro-trans/anti-Rowling celebrities to have a ”change of heart" and they will not be the last.

"Even the Harry Potter cast hates her" has long been the crown jewel of troon arguments against JKR. All the poisonous nonsense about antisemitism and secret Nazi mold castles go down so much smoother with normies when troons can legitimately point to Radcliffe and Watson and say, "see, it's not just us, even those Normal People Celebrities agree, and think what it must have cost them to say something so brave!" To this end, I'm not sure there's a single more damaging thing that could happen to the T+ agenda than having those two backtrack and say, "my bad, Arch-TERF Jo was right."

Yeah, they've been awful to Jo, and yeah, it's satisfying to imagine them stewing in their own juices, roundly rejected by former allies and the onetime enemies they're now trying to court alike. And, true, the slow pivot is almost certainly self-serving based on prevailing winds and not on a genuine change of belief. Even so, the value of a potential Come To Jesus moment from these two seems great enough for me to entertain the notion.

Judging by the xitter feed Rowling does not seem to agree with me, though.

 

[hind matches ltd]

For what it's worth, Rowling implied in a recent tweet that we don't know the full story of what happened between them.

 

[RonRiot]

Rowling isn’t going full gloves-off though. Pointing out that it’s inevitable that the same band of woman haters Watson backed when they were attacking JKR is now attacking her is mild considering how long Watson has been sucking gock.
JKR would never say sucking gock for instance. I bet she thinks it though. I admire her restraint.

 

[King Kiwi]

It's kind of ironic that the only one of the bunch that actually stood up for the woman that was responsible for all the fame and money they enjoy was the guy playing the evil snake characcter. I hope she sends Tom Felton a gift basket for having integrity.

My favorite actor of all of them.

He really got into Draco when Daniel was staring woodenly off into space.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

This is not going to be popular here but I think everyone including JKR is being absurd about Emma Watson. She never really understood any of this and never attacked Rowling. She and the others sure owed her gratitude but not to agree with her. (The first HP book even preaches about standing up to your friends when necessary!) None of them are terribly bright or courageous for sure, but they didn't particularly stand out.

Honestly, I have no idea how long it would have taken me to twig if I'd grown up amidst this organised insanity. Most people in the TERF/GC movement started out trans-friendly before they figure out what's what.

Ehhh, I don't think she's the worst person in the world, but she has been painfully cringe for many years now in her charity and activism. It's hard not to read that interview as attempting to pivot into some other sort of generic celebrity status now that movie starlet isn't in the cards anymore.

Rowling isn't even doing all that much, just being catty on Xitter. I don't know how much grace I feel she owes to a 35 year old fading star who last worked with her 15 years ago

 

[Gondolindrim]

"Even the Harry Potter cast hates her" has long been the crown jewel of troon arguments against JKR. All the poisonous nonsense about antisemitism and secret Nazi mold castles go down so much smoother with normies when troons can legitimately point to Radcliffe and Watson and say, "see, it's not just us, even those Normal People Celebrities agree, and think what it must have cost them to say something so brave!" To this end, I'm not sure there's a single more damaging thing that could happen to the T+ agenda than having those two backtrack and say, "my bad, Arch-TERF Jo was right."

Yeah, they've been awful to Jo, and yeah, it's satisfying to imagine them stewing in their own juices, roundly rejected by former allies and the onetime enemies they're now trying to court alike. And, true, the slow pivot is almost certainly self-serving based on prevailing winds and not on a genuine change of belief. Even so, the value of a potential Come To Jesus moment from these two seems great enough for me to entertain the notion.

I'm sure the TRAs danced a little jig when they saw that Daniel Radcliffe came out against JK. But considering his long list of post-Potter flops, I still doubt he'd sing the same tune if he wasn't so bitter himself.

It's upsetting to have the main actors come out and say they agree with the crazy people because it really is stabbing someone in the back whose been nothing but helpful to you. At this point, we're all just waiting for the narrative to change since anyone with a brain is distancing themselves from the cult now that troons killing children is becoming a reocurring thing.

On an unrelated note, sucks that Emma is stepping away from acting. I was a big fan. Now I really feel old that I watched a career begin and end in my lifetime.

 

[Pickman's Modeling Agency]

I might be "tone-policing" here, but for me it is less about her disagreeing with Rowling and more about her smugly throwing JK under the bus (why I asked for the BAFTA vid). If she'd just said, "I disagree with her, but she's done a lot of good for me and I don't think she deserves all the vitriol," then I personally wouldn't have an issue. But she didn't do that. Which is why the "I hope we can still be friends" gambit falls flat.

 

[holyhandgrenade]

This is not going to be popular here but I think everyone including JKR is being absurd about Emma Watson. She never really understood any of this and never attacked Rowling. She and the others sure owed her gratitude but not to agree with her. (The first HP book even preaches about standing up to your friends when necessary!) None of them are terribly bright or courageous for sure, but they didn't particularly stand out.

Honestly, I have no idea how long it would have taken me to twig if I'd grown up amidst this organised insanity. Most people in the TERF/GC movement started out trans-friendly before they figure out what's what.

She's a socio/political and probably literal whore it's hard to feel any sympathy for her, although tbf the movies did suck, and she was a child starlet who are infamously fucked up so I'm ambivalent.

 

[and I must scream]

LMAO Watson burned all bridges with JK and now the tranny cult and its worshippers.

This is what happens when you become a tranny ass kisser and ignore reality. The time is coming where famous tranny cock suckers have to explain why they supported a horrifying mutilation cult. Watson is nothing but a rat leaving the sinking ship.

I think sadly that all of you who think Watson is now going to suffer because the trannies hate her now and how she burned her bridge with Rowling are mistaken. Read the comments on the video of her almost two and a half hours interview. The vast majority of them are extremely positive, all gushing and praising her for being so "thoughtful, mature, elegant, emphatic, compassionate, caring, warm, kind, soulful, considerate, beautiful, amazing, wonderful person" and "Emma is everything Rowling should be". She won the public opinion and love yet again. I hate it so much.

This is not going to be popular here but I think everyone including JKR is being absurd about Emma Watson. She never really understood any of this

I don't buy it. I don't buy that she just was naïve and didn't understand what she supports. If she truly didn't understand why Rowling objected to the trans movement and why she wrote what she wrote in that essay, she could have simply asked her.

I mean - I was pro-trans until I saw the uproar in the wake of Rowling's essay, all the people calling her transphobic and her essay "dog whistle", and thought to myself, wait, wasn't Rowling always left wing and very pro-gay, how come she is transphobic? So I went and read the essay, didn't understand parts of it, was shocked by others (I remember especially the part about how males will be able to access women's spaces even without any surgeries and hormones, just by self identification, if a law or some policy would be passed). I started asking the people who talked against her questions, was shocked by the answers and by the hostility, and started dig in and look into the subject myself. I couldn't directly ask Rowling what she meant by the things she wrote that I didn't understand (for example, I didn't understand what autism had to do with it), so I searched for it myself, using things she mentioned in the essay like landmarks, and went on from there.

Watson could ask Rowling directly what she meant, or do the research herself. She is intelligent enough for that. She also didn't grow up with this shit like people who are in their 20's did, so she wasn't brainwashed to begin with.

Spoiler: Watson's activism is performative and self serving (activism nowadays usually is, tbh)

I'd be honest with you, I don't think she ever truly believed in the trans shit or cared much either way. It was just the right thing to say and advocate for at the time, the hottest cause at the moment, and it didn't cost her a thing, this does not effect her. Maybe it came from her PR team, maybe it was just her idea, either way she acted like handmaiden for clout. Watch her interview with Paris Lees (A transgender woman) in which, after being asked if she would feel comfortable with Lees using female toilets, replied “Oh my god, of course!" This supposedly show of empathy is so performative and self serving, I don't believe it was genuine at all. She just wants you to think she is a good person.

I mean, obviously I have never been inside her head to tell for sure, but all her activism (not just for the trans cause) seems performative, self serving and shallow to me. I greatly disliked her even before the whole trans thing because I thought her feminism is empty and meaningless, and everyone saying how much of a good person she is irked me. Her meaningless speeches, her invitation "HeForShe", which in my opinion does nothing meaningful and is the equivalent of these expensive DEI programs the administration at work force you to attend, that do not better the lives of these they supposedly advocate for, and are essentially just being used by the higher-ups to promote their organizations and themselves. Really, go and read yourself about the things it does. One example, from Wikipedia:

Further HeForShe Equality Stories include boys and men cycling through rural India to shift positively traditional gender norms, and boys and men redefining masculinity in Jordan.

Boys and men were cycling through India in the name of "gender equality". I suppose they wore shirts with HeForShe logo on them. I'm sure they had fun doing it, but what did that really achieve? How did it "shift positively traditional gender norms", whatever that means? All these activities "to show awareness" are usually meaningless, imo. People do it simply because the activities are fun and (usually) free and it makes little to no actual change. "Boys and men redefining masculinity in Jordan". What does it mean? Big words, little to no substantial action. Compare this to Rowling's philanthropy, what she donated to and founded. Women's rape shelters, aid for single mothers, help for people in deprivation - in particular women, teens and children. These are just a few examples. So financial support, legal support, mental health/emotional support, help with childcare, rehabilitation. Practical things that actually helps people. Not all this wokish blah blah blah.

And I mean, she is far from being the only celebrity who does that, yeah? Many of them do that. I'm just trying to explain why I think her behavior did not, imo, stem from actual belief in the cause, which she believed because she didn't understand what it truly means. I think she just didn't care and just wanted to make herself feel and look like a good person and get praised for that. You know, like most activists.

and never attacked Rowling.

Of course she didn't attack her directly, she wanted to show she is above all that. If there is something the Emma Watson is good at, is pretending to be classy.

However, she never said a word in favor of her, never spoke about her past relationship with her until now, and never condemned the vile threats Rowling received and the way she was treated. Rowling was defamed, vilified and demonized. Most people now believe she is a crazy old woman who just wants to stay in the limelight at best and practically evil at worst. All the good deeds she had done are forgotten. Watson - or the other two lead actors, for that matter - never said a word about any of this.

Instead Watson doubled down on the trans issue and went out of her way to show that she does not share Rowling's views. I suppose the difference between us here is that you think that Watson was genuine in her support of the trans movement, I believe it was just PR and virtue signaling. So she could have just say some pro-trans things but leave it alone for the most part, instead she did the opposite, which pretty much feels like giving the finger to Rowling.

She and the others sure owed her gratitude but not to agree with her. (The first HP book even preaches about standing up to your friends when necessary!)

I agree, they didn't have to agree with her. I find them ungrateful not because of their disagreement with her but because they didn't say a word about the way Rowling was treated and couldn't bring themselves to say anything positive about her, even if just "I appreciate what she has done for us" and something about what a generous person she was to them, which she was. Watson saying she still appreciates her now after five years of silence on the matter is imo just a way to try get out of the trans ship before it sinks, not a genuine sentiment. Notice how right before that the interviewer mentioned the negative things Rowling said about her (which is basically something like "I'll never forgive her"), and she doesn't even bother to say that she can understand why Rowling feels this way, essentially painting herself as the bigger person (as in - "yeah, she said these horrible things about me and it hurts me, yet I still appreciates and treasures her and wish we could be friends"). No acknowledge of Rowling's feelings, no mention of the abuse she got from trans activists and from the media. Just that she, Emma Watson, still treasures her and wish they can still be friends, as if this rift is all Rowling's doing.

None of them are terribly bright or courageous for sure, but they didn't particularly stand out.

They did stand out because they were the Harry Potter movies' trio and they are still primarily associated with this. As @News Enjoyer said:

"Even the Harry Potter cast hates her" has long been the crown jewel of troon arguments against JKR. All the poisonous nonsense about antisemitism and secret Nazi mold castles go down so much smoother with normies when troons can legitimately point to Radcliffe and Watson and say, "see, it's not just us, even those Normal People Celebrities agree, and think what it must have cost them to say something so brave!"

Also, they had a good relationship with her beforehand, and then they cut ties with her and didn't bother to object the mountains of abuse that were thrown at her, so that's definitely stands up - to Rowling, at the very least, if nothing else.

Not to downplay Felton, but, from the kids, Evanna Lynch (who played Luna) was the only one at the time who stood up for Rowling. She's also a Lumos ambassador, one of Rowling's charities (along with Bonnie Wright, who played Ginny. The Phelps twins are also still in Potter properties. However, Lynch's the only one I remember actually making a statement.), so I assume they're still on good terms and she hasn't changed her tune.

If I remember correctly, she did said something pro-trans at first but very quickly came to defend Rowling and said she is one of the most wonderful people she knows, etc. If the trio had said a fraction of this, I'd have given them a pass. But they didn't.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

I'd be honest with you, I don't think she ever truly believed in the trans shit or cared much either way. It was just the right thing to say and advocate for at the time, the hottest cause at the moment, and it didn't cost her a thing, this does not effect her. Maybe it came from her PR team, maybe it was just her idea, either way she acted like handmaiden for clout. Watch her interview with Paris Lees (A transgender woman) in which, after being asked if she would feel comfortable with Lees using female toilets, replied “Oh my god, of course!" This supposedly show of empathy is so performative and self serving, I don't believe it was genuine at all. She just wants you to think she is a good person.

This. I think the main reason she even began being a TRA is because her relative position to JK Rowling meant that it was bankable. Like you said, the main trio, by their very presence in the trans camp, served both as an attack on Rowling and her side, and a way to boost their careers. It was strategic and positional, not deeply believed, especially on Watson's part, she really leaned into being the female counterpoint, her being a woman making her the most obvious counterpoint.

And like, Watson was in the Panama papers. She's not some wide-eyed innocent in this world, she knows how to get her bag. Worth remembering that she was 29 when she did the Paris Lees interview. It wasn't all that long ago. At what point does she stop being an ingenue.