Was reading the Hogwarts thread and saw the toilet issue raised a little so just felt I would throw this in.

We recetently redid the bathroom set-up in our restaurant. We went from a Mens Bathroom (with 1 cubicle and 2 urinals) and 1 Ladies Bathrooms (3 Cubicles, 1 with changing facilities) to 2 Stand alone cubicles for the men(1 getting a changing facility) and 1 Ladies Bathroom with 2 Cubicles and a seperate lobby. The original plan was to go full non-gender but several ladies on the staff room pointed out that Women do use the lobby part of a bathroom more especially on a night out so we should retain some of that. We have the mens toilets designated male still, but the feeling is that we could easily make these non gender (but then that creates a bit of a weird effect with a seperate womens bathroom). 

I bring this up to highlight that many women still aren't comfortable with the shared concept, for better or worse. There is more to the bathroom experience for Women than Men it would appear (hence why Women tend to go to the bathroom in pairs)

But also switching to no urinals and single cubicles for the mens has been a god send. So much easier to keep clean. If I could I'd make the whole lot unisex but that might need a few more years.

Looking at it as straws on a camel's back is also dumb as fuck. If this game was shite and bombed to such an extent that absolutely no one bought it, trans issues would still be a thing

I'm glad we agree. Went around the doors with it and there's been a few misrepresentations of my point which meant I've had to clarify and repeat it more than I'd thought I'd have to

I let my principles get in the way sometimes. I punched a bloke in the face once for saying "Hawk the Slayer" was rubbish.

Brooks wrote:

I'd prefer authors in all mediums to not be total shits and am unlikely to endorse them while they can still benefit materially from my consumption, but every so often one just has to admit that some of them just do have chops I appreciate despite. Ariel Pink's a good one for me - preening dumbass IRL, but man can write a pop phrase for days. Led Zep were nonces.

 

This is roughly where I am. I'd love to pretend that I'm a creature of unflinching principle, but in reality there's a sort of Venn diagram that's made up of "how terrible is the thing I disapprove of?", "how good is the work I would otherwise have wanted?" and most tellingly/depressing of all "To what degree does the issue at hand play into my day to day life?"

Ultimately I haven't bought the Hogwarts game because people I care about genuinely feel hurt by her actions. I suspect if the issue were more abstract to me, I'd be less bothered - which is a slightly disappointing thing to realise about myself, but I don't think I'm alone it.  I have friends with a trans son who used to love Harry Potter and now regards Rowling's views as evidence that there is something fundamentally wrong with his trans nature. It's awful to see. Equally I can't help but feel that a lot of the rhetoric echoes that aimed at homosexuals when I was a kid, and I had hoped we'd moved on from that shit. (At least one of my children is gay, and so, yeah, again I feel it more personally than I might otherwise.)

Like most of you, I don't for a second assume that someone who chooses to buy or play the game is "anti-trans". I suspect most haven't thought about it much, and the majority that have, find it lands slightly differently in their personal Venn diagram. Which is fair enough. And, yeah, what difference does one person make?  (Though, of course, if all of them chose not to buy it...)

I'm not sure I even have that much issue with people who agree with Rowling in broad terms. It's a really complex nuanced issue that has been widely expressed in terms that are anything but - by both sides. I can't claim to have entirely wrapped me head around it all, despite it literally being part of my job. However Rowling isn't just another person I happen to disagree with - she's loud, influential and persistent in her views, with seemingly little tolerance for other perspectives (despite her occasional claims to the contrary).  If nothing else it's only right that an equally loud voice appears in opposition to hers, and sadly it seems that the release of the game is one of the few opportunities to do that.

(Also, I have now googled Ariel Pink and can absolutely see why you'd be conflicted on that one...)

My point was never that the whole issue wasn't worth pursuing. My point was that pursuing it by abusing people playing a video game is dumb.

I'll probably spend the rest of my life clarifying this incredibly simple point that everyone agrees with because people also tie it in with a different point that I'm not making. Mad as fuck this, innit?

Well it certainly reads like that when people respond to a point I'm making with a counter to a point I'm not making. How am I supposed to tell it's not directed at me?

People who opppsed this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-scandal-gender-clinic-puberty-blockers-nhs-investigation-ghrqxk8pn … are brave and admirable actually and I think it’s wrong that we’re using Rowling as an example.

And if you’re thinking, ‘it’s in the Times’… yeah probably because none of the left wing papers will cover this sort of thing. Multiple female journalists at the guardian have been effectively hounded out for daring to speak up about this.

Knight wrote:

People who opppsed this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-scandal-gender-clinic-puberty-blockers-nhs-investigation-ghrqxk8pn … are brave and admirable actually and I think it’s wrong that we’re using Rowling as an example.

And if you’re thinking, ‘it’s in the Times’… yeah probably because none of the left wing papers will cover this sort of thing. Multiple female journalists at the guardian have been effectively hounded out for daring to speak up about this.

I don't know enough of the subject to argue this, but a quick Google shows that at least the guardian has a few articles about Tavistock. They just appear to be balancing the story because they are not a right wing paper, like the times.

Good to know hitler is where you draw the line

If it's anything like his paintings you can expect a middling retro platformer at best.

The only people who seem to really eat shit that sticks re: 'outrageous conduct' without much in the way of Due Process are small figures within the fairly small audiences they otherwise rely on for sustenance. Precarious content grunts - a  handsy indie musician or podcaster or webcomic artist or marginal academic, whatever. Not Dave Chappelle. To be properly erased at that tier you literally need to be a flagrant sex criminal of many years at least.

Which of course suggests to me that mayber, calibrate response to bad behaviour according to clout. If it's a megastar, go nuts, scream bloody murder, it cannot matter. If it's the guy you chuck a Patreon fiver at every so often for nice videos about potmaking, probably at least wait for them to pop out a contrite tweet before calling their dayjob with Important Information.

DrewMerson wrote:

…a victim of cancel culture.

Ah, yes, I wondered why she’d gone quiet on twitter, never shows up in news articles, the HP books had disappeared off the shelves, Sky didn’t lead their Christmas movie campaign with the latest FB film, and finally Hogwarts Legacy has had no coverage, with the scant reviews it has had being negative.

You may have to expand...or not! Either way, I think it's a diversion from the wider point.