Your hero didn’t let you down. You feel let down. There is no obligation for your heroes to share your political or personal views. In short, this is a you problem, not a her problem. This was a complex legal case about philosophy and the language used about expressing your views in the workplace. It has been grossly oversimplified by both sides to suit their own arguments.
Am not a fan of Rowling particularly — but am a fan of liberalism. This means supporting the rights of people to both assert their gender identity and the rights of others in society to refuse to accept that assertion. That was what was being questioned in this case and it wasn’t a simple ‘goodies vs baddies’ legal case, it was a discussion of the point of law around expression in the workplace. This is what the law is for and why we need to have these complicated discussions.
Simply asserting “I”ll never read her books again! She’s a vile human!’ or conversely “The judge is an idiot and Maya is amazing and a martyr” neither forwards the discussion or adds anything interesting into it — and it constitutes about 98% of everything written or said about the subject. That includes Rowling’s tweet.
My own view — for what it’s worth — is that the judgment rests on the language used in the law, and as a result judge was right in law but that pending further appeals the law will likely be amended. I appreciate this may be difficult for the trans community, and I can see why they feel the door may be shut on them by trans-exclusionary feminists. That doesn’t make shutting that door the wrong thing per se, it means finding a different door to open — one that doesn’t infringe on the rights of a group that already feels marginalised and is kicking back with vehemence. There is always a way.
This complex balancing of the contradictory rights of different individuals is how society develops in the crucible of law. The alternative is mob justice via Twitter and policing dissent through shaming, cultural boycotting and depriving people of their income or personal freedom of expression because you don’t agree with them. This is a hugely ironic thing to do given the reasons for doing so in the first place are to assert personal freedoms of expression. The development and testing of law is slow (but steady), social media outrages are short (and kneejerk) — I know which one I’m going to be throwing my weight behind to create a fairer society.
Whether people choose to stop reading Rowling’s books is a different matter. If you cannot separate art from artists, and you won’t read, look at or listen to anything by someone whose world view differs from your own, then you’re going to have a very bleak existence. If you’re going to stop children reading them (as one commenter is struggling with) then you’re doing that child a massive disservice. Whether or not you agree with her politically or personally, the books are excellently written.
