Stephen Fry is a rat
If you’re a sleb you have to stand up in public and tell abusive lies about JK Rowling or you won’t be a luvvie any more. Stephen Fry energetically complies.
Speaking on the Show People podcast, Sir Stephen said: “She has been radicalised, I fear, and it may be she has been radicalised by terfs, but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her. It is unhelpful and only hardens her and will only continue to harden her, I am afraid. I am not saying that she [should] not be called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking. She seems to be a lost cause for us.”
Yo, Sir Stephen, take a look at the things trans “activists” say about women, then get back to us about anything JKR has ever said that comes within shouting distance. Take all the time you need provided you shut up while you search.
Sir Stephen is the latest high-profile figure to criticise the author, following well-documented fall-outs with original cast members Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint.
No, not fall-outs, you lying weasels. Backstabs by Radcliffe Watson and Grint.
“She started to make these peculiar statements and had very strong, difficult views,” he continued. “She seemed to wake up or kick a hornet’s nest of transphobia, which has been entirely destructive. I disagree profoundly with her on this subject. I am angry she does not disavow some of the more revolting and truly horrible, destructive, violently destructive things that people say. She does not attack those at all.”
Yo, Mister Sir, are you at all angry about the revolting truly horrible, destructive, violently destructive things that the pro-trans ideology faction says about and to her?
He said he was “very happy” to go on the record and say he was “really angry” about Rowling’s “crowing” of the gender ruling in court.
Happy to go on the record being really angry that women have rights?
Horrible man.
Note how she has been radicalized by outside forces. No way could she have developed a pro-woman position without some outside forces—after all, she’s just a woman.
And there it is: she’s being “difficult”.
The accusation hurled at every woman who won’t do what a man wants her to do.
Note how defending women, women’s rights, women’s spaces, women’s boundaries from men is “radicalization”, and that asserting that humans can change sex, that sex is a “spectrum”, that invisible, undetectable “gender” should take precedence over the material reality of sex, and that women must not be allowed to have anything that fails to include men is itself somehow not a collection of dangerous and repugnant ideas. We might well ask what was it that radicalized Mr. Fry against women?
Barbyra @#1
Close. You’ve almost got it. You’ve successfully captured Fry’s condescending, patronizing tone, but it needs a little tweaking. Run this through the Secret Trans Decoder Ring and you get his preferred formulation, which would be “No way could she have developed an anti-trans position without some outside forces.” He can’t have people seeing Rowling’s position as being anything other than “anti-trans”, because to accept her stance as being “pro-woman” is just opening a can of worms he isn’t interested in eating. In his view, there’s no such thing as “pro-woman” that does not include
women in all their diversitymen pretending to be women, because TWAW, and the official line is that there is NO CONFLICT between trans “rights” and women’s rights because they’re all women. He’s trying to portray Rowling as having been poisoned by evil courtiers, feeding her lies.Rowling’s defence of women’s rights is certainly fueled by outside forces. The ascent of virulent misogyny clothed in trans “rights” is an “outside force.” The corruption of language and politics at the expense of women’s rights are threats that need addressing. I doubt that Rowling would have launched this campaign had transactivism kept to its own lane and not chosen a deliberate strategy of female erasure and colonization. Third spaces for toilet and changing facilities; shelters and health facilities organized by and dedicated to trans identified people; accommodation within men’s facilities, etc., rather than wholesale appropriation of hard-won women’s spaces, facilities, and institutions, as well as those of gays and lesbians. Of course Fry cannot admit to any such thing, because then her stance would be seen as a logical outcome of the actions of the side he’s chosen, rather than the malicious influence of evil TERFs who have her ear.
Here Fry is suggesting (as Barbyra noted) that Rowling, poor dear, has been led astray by bad actors, and further pushed into Wrongthink because of the personal nature of the abuse aimed at her, the assumption being that, absent these factors, she’d be fine with trans demands, and that her response is personal rather than political response, and that she is wrongheaded not to see this. She should be able to rise above the perceived slights to see beyond her personal feelings. Can’t she just stop taking this so personally and see the bigger picture beyond her own narrow view? I mean, what’s a few death threats among friends and “allies”, right? Can’t she forgive and forget? Can’t she just SHUT UP?!
Fry might be decrying the “vitriol” that’s been directed at Rowling, but is not above throwing more here himself. Spreading lies about someone must fall under the category of “vitriol”, however genteelly put. It’s quite possible to be vulgar without resorting to vulgar words.
Goddamn right she’s “hard”. She has had to be hard. She joined this battle, she did not start it. She waded in knowing full well what she was in for. As I have noted elsewhere, Rowling has been a lightning rod and a beacon of hope for millions of women unable, or afraid to resist as she has. She has willingly taken on threats, hatred, and abuse, using her position and wealth to defend women, rather than sit back and let this issue slide. Unlike you, Mr. Fry, who has jumped on a bandwagon. You are following rather than leading, bowing down and kissing the ring instead of standing up and saying “No”.
Quite apart from Ophelia’s point about the studious avoidance of the torrent of venomously inciteful rhetoric coming out of the trans camp, show us where Rowling herself has said anything that is “cruel and wrong”. I’ll wait. I will not add “mocking” to this list because much, if not most, of what trans activism claims and demands is worthy of little but mockery. Ideas must stand up for themselves; they do not get a pass, or become immune to scrutiny or even ridicule by virtue of who espouses them. Ideas are fair game.
Yes of course; all of this is written “more in sorrow than in anger.” Boo fucking hoo. Crocodile tears. Faux regret. “This will hurt me more than it hurts” you bullshit. Rowling is under no obligation to explain or justify herself to you. Her statements and motives are clear. It takes a whole lot of imagination and bad faith to see her position as anything but a defence of women’s rights. If being pro-woman is “transphobic”, then the reverse must also be true; being pro-trans is misogynistic. I would say that the onus is on you to explain how defending trans “rights” is not anti-woman. As trans rights are currently constituted, you can’t. So you don’t. Instead you dishonestly blame this situation on Rowling’s willful, unprovoked “transphobia”, rather than a natural response to the multiple, manifest harms to women caused by trans activism.
“Peculiar” and “difficult” only if you believe that men can be women. Strong? Damn right.
Then you weren’t paying attention. This was not a whim on her part; she knew what she was doing. Don’t try to remove her agency by portraying her actions as some kind of inexplicable, ignorant blunder. She didn’t fire the first shot. She was reacting to the words and actions of others. And “kick[ing] a hornet’s nest of transphobia”? Please. Referencing reality is “transphobic.” Be more specific. Besides that, the “kicking” was going in the other direction. Letting men invading women’s spaces is not benign and harmless. It was already in progress. Remember this, Mr. Fry?
Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill
I’m sure that Maya Forstater did not see Rowling’s intervention as “entirely destructive.” Neither did millions of women. It was bad news for trans activism’s attempts to rewrite law to suit their agenda. Forstater (and Rowling) helped to bring attention to this, which has led directly to the Supreme Court ruling, so I can understand Fry’s attempt to pin blame on Rowling for this result, which is so disastrous for the continuation of the Stonewall Law coup.
Okay, please explain why women shouldn’t have boundaries, rights, and spaces for themselves, because that’s what the real subject. What you are supporting is the destruction of women’s rights.
Given the above, I’d say that’s a “Yes.”
Ugh. I gave up on Fry some years ago when he gave an interview ridiculing straight women and expounding upon the gloriousness of gay men. FAFO, Stephen Fry.
He made such a good Jeeves, though. Sigh.
That ‘difficult’ leapt off the page for me too. Calling a woman difficult in 2025. I can only say Fry has never had much in the way of self-awarness. He’s a decent actor/comedian but why anyone ever thought he was some sort of intellectual is beyond me. But he plays a role to a tee, that role being the genial regime jester.
This bit is the bit that genuinely infuriates me:
‘Sir Stephen said: “She has been radicalised, I fear, and it may be she has been radicalised by terfs, but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her. It is unhelpful and only hardens her and will only continue to harden her, I am afraid. I am not saying that she [should] not be called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking. She seems to be a lost cause for us.”’
This double standard. This quote makes clear he knows full well what Rowling has been subjected to, and he knows it constitutes harassment. The only concession he makes to deeming this bad behaviour is that he calls it “unhelpful”, but otherwise, he is blaming Rowling for failing to take this harassment and abuse well. He is expecting that, if she were nice, she would have overlooked it all, and backed down. He requires that of her to count as kind, in his estimation, while requiring no such thing of the vitriol flingers and public pissers. In fact, he excuses them so much, he still says Rowling should be “called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking”.
There is apparently no limit to the amount of abuse he requires her to take in good humour, and she absolutely must not learn any lessons like “these are abusive men, subjecting me to abuse, and that justifies my position rather than undermining it”. Likewise, there is apparently nothing Fry won’t excuse from the trans activists, given the worst he’ll describe their behaviour as is “unhelpful”. A ten year old who won’t put their plate in the sink is unhelpful. A man threatening the beheading of women’s rights campaigners is hardly in the same league.
His behaviour and reasoning is frankly outrageous.
[…] a comment by Arcadia on Stephen Fry is a […]