LGBTQ+

JK Rowling was always a liberal centrist. From an old 4Chan post:

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy. Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland. Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts upto enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end. the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors. a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Vold/s level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So. for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

My initial theory is that JK Rowling saw trans women as a threat to her status quo. At the end of the day, that's all Centrist Liberals care about. Social progress can't affect their status quo. It's why Centrist Liberals will always back fascism. Fascism is designed to protect the status quo. The problem is that Centrist Liberals don't understand that fascism requires an out group to work and those Centrist Liberals will be the out group at one point.

I want to caution about reading -isms into authors works. People often don't really know their own stereotyping unless it's pointed out (you, dear reader, probably have some problematic world views that no one has noticed or mentioned...). The fallout afterwards is where the problems exist, when someone doubles down on their viewpoints after being informed of them.

Rowling has clearly done that and is dismissed because of it. I will avoid things that give her a platform, and the original art itself is tainted due to her continued stances; but, back to the general case, just because art might be racist or antisemitic, etc., at the time of creation, if the artist can be convinced that their views are wrong, we should celebrate that -- just with footnotes and context.

She also describes women that she wants the reader to hate as having masculine features. "Mannish hands," a square jawline and thick neck on a teenage girl, there's plenty in the first book alone.

Wasn't there one Irish guy, and he had an experiment blow up in his face?

Never gave a shit about the series but remember hearing about token characters having a dose of racism to them.

The only major black character in the series is

*was ;-)