One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[delwynmarch]

Katie wrote:
> I guess what I was referring to, and I 
> phrased it poorly, was that you have argued 
> that saying DD is gay has now offended some 
> people who now don't want to read the books, 
> and she shouldn't have done that.

Del replies:
Not quite. What I have argued is that:

1- JKR knew perfectly well that there *are* 
some of her readers who would stop reading her 
books if there was a main gay character in them.

2- She pandered to the wishes of those readers 
throughout the 7 books, by creating a strictly 
heterosexual society, and by writing DD as an 
asexual character.

3- AFTER the 7 books were out, and AFTER a good 
deal of those aforementioned readers had BOUGHT 
and read the books, she outed DD.

That's despicably manipulating IMO. Something 
worthy of DD himself, and I despise DD on that 
matter.

> I think she feels she's in a defensive position 
> and needs to defend herself and her beliefs. 

*She* feels she needs to defend herself and her 
beliefs??? Who has called her bad things for being 
a lesbian *on this list* ??? Who has told her that 
she's being X and Y just because she's a lesbian 
*on this list*??? Nobody!!!

She, though, has called untold numbers of list 
members, and yours truly in particular, bigoted and 
prejudiced and intolerant, and has associated all 
those people with criminals and mean people, simply 
because those readers have a problem with 
homosexuality!

Excuse me, but she's not the one in need of defense 
here: she's the one *attacking*!

> First of all, please refrain from calling me names, 
> since I have not called you any.

As someone else mentioned, "bigot" is not a name. And 
anyway, I included a "if" in my sentence, so it's up to 
you whether you end up being a bigot or not: I only call
you a bigot if you call people who have a problem with 
homosexuality but don't victimise gay people bigots.

> I am not a bigot,

Neither are they.

> and I didn't say these people should not act 
> according to their conscience. I said that their 
> conscience should change. That their 
> consciences are misguided, IMO. 

And they believe that gay people's hearts and hormones 
are misguided, and they wish that their hearts and 
hormones would change. As I said, exactly the same 
situation.

> Second of all, if you are going to quote someone, 
> please don't cut them off mid-sentence and not even 
> write that it's a snip.

Actually, snipping is the rule on the HP lists. We 
are *supposed* to snip and quote only the parts we 
are directly replying to.
 
> I don't feel there is a "viable alternative". You 
> either see the light, or you don't, IMO.

Which is exactly how those people who have a problem 
with homosexuality feel too.

> I wish people weren't bigoted. Is it my job to show 
> them why they're wrong?? I'm trying right now! I've 
> been trying to say for weeks that gay people are the 
> same as stright, and that gay "lifestyles" aren't any 
> different...etc.

Precisely. And people who have a problem with 
homosexuality have been doing the same. Everyone is 
cheering for their team, as everyone is entitled to.

> I just wish that we all could stop throwing insults 
> at each other and hear each other instead. I am 
> trying to hear you. Please extend me the same. 

I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've 
been trying to explain that calling those people who 
have a problem with homosexuality "bigots" simply 
because one doesn't agree with them is a sign of 
bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me 
when I say that?

Del