I didn’t know JK was homophobic - where did you read/hear that?
Hi there, sorry I took a little bit to get to your ask. I had to get out of bed and onto my PC to write this out. I would also like to state before I get into it all that at no point during this answer am I angry at you for asking, for not knowing, or being curious about it. I have a rough time communicating my tone through text, and all of my anger and upset is aimed at Rowling herself and the shit that she's pulled.
I will try my best to articulate myself and stay on the topic of homophobia during this so that what I'm saying is easily understood and not misconstrued, since I have a hard time putting into words what I'm feeling or thinking, however, some of her homophobia is also intertwined with her Transphobia, so that will also show up at times. I will also do my hardest to pull up any sources I can still find so that you have proof and not just hearsay. Thank you for being patient with me!
If anyone is not interested in Harry Potter or J.K. Rowling Discourse, I will be putting the rest under the cut. Feel free to read if you might be intrigued by thoughts on the matter.
THIS IS A GINORMOUS WALL OF TEXT. I am not only explaining for Anon here, this is something that I am writing up for the benefit of everyone that might be interested.
THERE ARE TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR:
-
-
-
Mentions of Child Sexual Abuse, Rape, Transphobia, and Homophobia.
All of Rowling's Quotes will be highlighted in red, indented, bolded, and italicized for clarity.
All links will be colored in green for clarity.
First off we'll start with something that's quite straightforward and clearly came to be because of prejudice and willful ignorance on the subject by Rowling.
On August 10th, 2015, Rowling made a Pottermore publication for Remus Lupin, explaining his character and backstory. One such quote raised quite a few eyebrows, and it wasn't until a little while later people started to realize that it wasn't necessarily good rhetoric to have and/or spread.
“Lupin’s condition of lycanthropy (being a werewolf) was a metaphor for those illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS. All kinds of superstitions seem to surround blood-borne conditions, probably due to taboos surrounding blood itself. The wizarding community is as prone to hysteria and prejudice as the Muggle one, and the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes. Remus’s Patronus is never revealed in the Potter books, even though it is he who teaches Harry the difficult and unusual art of producing one. It is, in fact, a wolf – an ordinary wolf, not a werewolf. Wolves are family-orientated and non-aggressive, but Remus dislikes the form of his Patronus, which is a constant reminder of his affliction. Everything wolfish disgusts him, and he often produces a non-corporeal Patronus deliberately, especially when others are watching.”
Now, this may seem like a progressive take at first, and a lot of people thought that when it was released at the time, however beneath the metaphor there is quite a bit of homophobia behind it - willfully put there, or not. (Although it is now pretty clear that Rowling only did most of the stuff that she did for clout and forced diversity instead of progressiveness and/or activism - not out of the goodness of her heart.)
We never necessarily see anything explore of the Wizarding World's stance on Homosexuality besides a Tweet from Rowling about how,
“The wizards don't give a damn - it's all about the magic for them.”
There was also a quote from a PotterCast interview with her where she spoke up after being prompted about the Wizarding World's take on homosexuality, here are the excerpts.
MA: “We wanna talk about Dumbledore so bad. We know that you've created worldwide intrigue when you said that he is gay. But I wanted to ask you about homosexuality in the Wizarding World in general. Is it a taboo?”
JKR: “Now, that's something I never thought of. I would think that that would be-- it would be exactly what it is in the Muggle World. But the greatest taboo in the Wizarding World is, well, for some wizards... I mean if we're talking about prejudiced people within the Wizarding World, what they care most about is your blood status. So I think you could be, um, gay, pure-blood, and totally without any kind of criticism from the Lucius Malfoys of the world. I don't think that would be something that would interest him in the slightest. But, you know, I can't answer for all witches and wizards because I think in matters of the heart, it would be directly parallel to our world.”
So despite the quite large conflict between these two quotes, we understand that the Wizarding World is primarily tolerant of homosexuality and gay folks, however because of the racist pure-blood supremacist ideals, those who are gay and half-blood, muggle-born, or muggle would receive just as much hate (if not more because of their blood status) for being "less pure".
However, that is a whole other can to be opened and I'm derailing myself slightly. So back to the issue of comparing Lycanthropy to HIV and Aids. This is an incredibly problematic metaphor because of how Lupin and other Werewolves are depicted within the franchise overall, while also just being a weird metaphor all-round.
In the series, Werewolves are seen as savage, irredeemable, and as a direct quote from Remus Lupin's father, Lyall, who she described as being “generally a mild-mannered man” stated that Werewolves were all, “soulless, evil, deserving nothing but death” - so you can see where this is going, I hope.
One of the first Werewolves we learn about other than Lupin himself is Fenrir Greyback, who is the one that turned Lupin, who was four at the time and about to turn five.
So not only do we have two different people who create vastly different and not-so-good images of what Werewolves are in the Wizarding World, but we also have an inherently predatory Werewolf who specifically targets children to turn. This raises a big concern of, "Why was that the representation we saw?"
We all know that within any given community there will always be bad people, it's inevitable. However, the representation that Rowling chose to directly place in the limelight is basically that of an implied pedophile and that implied pedophile's victim. This is mainly all we get to see explaining how Werewolves are in the Franchise.
The major problem here is the fact that the Lyncanthropy which Rowling stated was the metaphor for HIV and Aids is the 'reason' for Fenrir being this way, and piggybacking off of that, it heavily suggests that in a setting where the metaphor is no longer a metaphor and is a real-world physical problem, and this situation had happened, that Fenrir would have sexually assaulted the toddler Remus Lupin to transmit this disease.
Quoting a passage from this article,
“that those with sexually transmitted diseases are sexual deviants and will even rape the innocent simply to pass on their symptoms.”
It begs the thought of how Rowling truly views people with HIV/Aids in real life, as well. This metaphor, while directly being a harmful metaphor towards anyone with sexually transmitted diseases, is inherently homophobic, as the two major characters depicted suffering the consequences from it and acting out as they did, are a man and a boy. It fuels the stigma that all gay men are afflicted with an STD and the homophobic rhetoric that gay men were and still are pedophiles and rapists.
We already know that Rowling herself has implied that she believes Trans Women are predators and rapists from this tweet where she criticizes the Scottish Police Force for respecting the preferred pronouns on legal documents and papers of those convicted for sexual assault.
(I would also like to point out that time and time again, it has already been stated that willfully misgendering a criminal or a bad person, you devalue the facet of them being Trans - in doing so, it harms every other Trans person that exists because of the fact that it makes it seem as if being Trans is a prize to be won, and it is stripping them of their identity.)
Back to the topic at hand though. One of the other examples of Rowling's homophobia is in the form of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's history.
In 2007, Rowling publicly stated - later re-published by The Rowling Library Twitter account - that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was,
“incredibly intense. It was passionate, and it was a love relationship.”
This sparked controversy, as, at the time, gay marriage and gay people were still not fully accepted, and still heavily discriminated against on a day-to-day basis. However, at the time, this seemed to be a large win for Queer folks, as representation in a franchise as big as Harry Potter was monumental.
After confirming that both Dumbledore and Grindelwald were either Gay or at the least Bisexual or Pansexual, she went on to entirely gloss over the fact of this, instead opting for the "love doesn't need a label" idealism.
“But as happens in any relationship, gay or straight or whatever label we want to put on it, one never knows really what the other person is feeling. You can’t know, you can believe you know. So I’m less interested in the sexual side – though I believe there is a sexual dimension to this relationship – than I am in the sense of the emotions they felt for each other, which ultimately is the most fascinating thing about all human relationships.”
While this is not inherently harmful or bad ideology on its own, this was incredibly harmful to the LGBT community since this was basically saying, "I'm going to take your identity and place it in my canon, but I'm not going to value it or respect it. Instead, I'm going to only use it for shock-value and false depth."
Completely glossing over the fact that both characters were Queer strips them of their basic identities and instead creates a platitude for those who wanted more diversity within the series.
Not to mention the fact that none of this was in the books. The fact that she chose to only diversify after the publication of said books goes to show that she most likely only did it to force diversity and placate, and was never truly interested in representing minorities.
Alongside the reveal in 2007, on October 20th of the same year, Rowling also stated during an interview at Carnegie Hall, that she,
“always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was.”
This specific quote makes me ask myself, "Maybe she really did view him as Queer beforehand?" However, the next quote absolutely solidifies the implication of performative activism - in my own mind and I'm sure the minds of many others - on her part to placate the LGBT masses.
“I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, “Dumbledore’s gay!” [laughter] “If I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!”
I have looked and looked to see what the specific date of the first quote where she states that they had an intense relationship was published, as it wasn't in the Carnegie Hall transcript at all, and couldn't find one sadly, however, I assume it was before the Carnegie Hall interview since it was worded a lot differently and less confidently, as some sources state that she made the quote immediately after the release of the seventh book.
If it was indeed beforehand, I can say with almost complete certainty that the Carnegie Hall quotes were specifically to be platitudes for those who gave her backlash on the fact that she completely glossed over the sexualities of two incredibly important characters for the worldbuilding of the story.
Later in 2018 before the release of the Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, there was also a lot of controversy over the fact that the director spoke of the fact that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's sexualities would not be explored upon in the movie during an interview.
According to The Crimes of Grindelwald director David Yates, this year’s sequel, at least, will not directly reference Dumbledore’s sexuality. “Not explicitly,” Yates replied when asked if the film makes it clear that Dumbledore is gay. “But I think all the fans are aware of that. He had a very intense relationship with Grindelwald when they were young men. They fell in love with each other’s ideas, and ideology and each other.”
In 2016 during a press conference, before the release of the movie, Rowling hinted that the relationship may be expanded upon later on, and that she,
“can’t tell you everything I would like to say because this is obviously a five-part story so there’s lots to unpack in that relationship,”
Which gave us at least a little hope that it would be perhaps explained in more detail at a later time. However, at this time, it's kind of a moot point as her franchise is losing footing and ground with all of the TERF rhetoric she spews. Next, she states that,
“You will see Dumbledore as a younger man and quite a troubled man — he wasn’t always the sage…We’ll see him at that formative period of his life. As far as his sexuality is concerned … watch this space.”
While this does spark some hope, it also sparks a little bit of confusion as well. She references their relationship perhaps being shown in more detail later as time progresses but then addresses Dumbledore's sexuality as a separate, secondhand, topic. So will they explore his relationship with Grindelwald and his sexuality, as they are both inherently tied together, or not?
After the interview with Director Yates, Rowling posted a Tweet in which she defends herself from "abuse" being sent to her over the interview which "didn't involve her", because of the backlash from Dumbledore's sexual identity not being detailed during the Crimes of Grindelwald. She then says after that she wrote the screenplay.
So she's complaining about not being responsible for something that gained retaliation, while also being directly responsible for that something. Okay, Rowling.
My take from it is that she wants to most likely do what most Heterosexual screenwriters and producers do with their LGBT characters, and use the fact that they are 'different' to try and make their situation unique without pissing off straight people by having the main character who's explicitly stated to be LGBT inside of the film/media content.
I'm sure that I missed a few things, but I went over most of what I could remember and pulled up for you, and I hope that answers your question of where I heard about it.
