# data[].attributes.body
To save the galaxy was a privilege once afforded to mainly white audiences, and Star Wars enabled it for decades. Now that the franchise has opened to other kinds of people, theses so-called “real” fans just can’t deal. Taking on names like The Fandom Menace, these fans push back at the inclusivity new Star Wars content includes. And instead of trying to join these mostly white male spaces, fans of the franchises are making their own spaces and rightfully so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Black Star Wars Fans Create Space For Themselves Outside the Toxic Fandom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Monika Estrella Negra Following the removal of Gina Carano from the hit Disney+ series The Mandalorian, a chapter in the massive Star Wars saga, old conversations involving the state of the Star Wars Fandom and racist toxicity came to the forefront again.

# data[].attributes.body
A white 17 year old is on trial after he crossed state lines to shoot and ultimately kill BLM protesters. Many people assume he will not be convicted, and it's hard to imagine this being the case if roles were reversed and this young man was black.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ever since the night of Aug. 25, 2020, when two people were shot dead in the streets of Kenosha and a third person seriously wounded, the question hasn't been who did it but whether Antioch teenager Kyle Rittenhouse would get away with it.

As the first week of his murder trial came to a close, I must report that you shouldn't be surprised if he does.

I've always believed it would be difficult to find 12 jurors who would agree to convict Rittenhouse of the most serious homicide charges against him if only because the case is an intersection of so many issues on which our society is hopelessly divided - race, violence, law enforcement, guns and politics.

On top of that, the evidence presented so far has mostly supported Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense - if jurors get past the absurdity of him being there armed in the first place.

The irony is that a key element of self-defense is the reasonableness of a person's actions under the circumstances. There was absolutely nothing reasonable about anything that happened in Kenosha that night - from a 17-year-old high school dropout playing self-deputized peacekeeper with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, to the adults who enabled him, to the law enforcement personnel who failed to send them all home, to the rioters who set fires and brought their own guns to protest the shooting of a Black man by a white police officer.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate reason to be there that night, and I believe he deserves serious punishment.

Yet Rittenhouse's folly also turns out to be the basis for his defense: His fear of someone taking his gun becomes justification for him pulling the trigger.

Rittenhouse is such an idiot he never even suspected he was in over his head until it was too late.

In fact, until the moment he shot Joseph Rosenbaum, that August night probably felt like the greatest of Rittenhouse's life as he played the hero, toting around his big gun and his first aid kit, pretending he was a "medic" who was only there to help - parroting the first responder motto: "If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way."

I'm assuming most of you have seen the video in which Rittenhouse explains his presence in Kenosha while being interviewed at a used car lot that he and his gun-toting buddies were protecting, the one in which he looks every bit his age.

The video was made by Richard McGinniss, a videographer for the Daily Caller, who exactly 14 minutes later was steps away when Rittenhouse gunned down his first victim, Rosenbaum.

McGinniss tried to save Rosenbaum's life while Rittenhouse fled and shot two more men who attempted to stop him - one who hit Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard and the other who pulled a gun, providing more ammo for the self-defense argument.

Videos and testimony indicate an angry Rosenbaum was shot as he chased Rittenhouse and lunged for his rifle seconds after another protester/anarchist had fired a handgun into the air nearby. Earlier that evening, Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse and his fellow vigilantes, one witness testified.

In his opening statement, prosecutor Thomas Binger said Rittenhouse "chased down Mr. Rosenbaum and confronted him." But the evidence so far hasn't really backed that up.

This is the first time I've followed a trial on Court TV, which was a good plan until Friday, when the Rittenhouse proceedings were preempted by opening statements in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial in Georgia - our country having an abundance of race-based vigilante crimes from which to choose.

I find it difficult - without resorting to the use of a profanity referring to a bodily orifice - to describe most of the people involved in this case. One of the witnesses Friday couldn't help himself, using that same term, and had to be admonished by the judge.

To paraphrase a former president, there were bad people on both sides, though, as the prosecution has emphasized, Rittenhouse was the only one who managed to actually kill someone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't be surprised if jury accepts Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense claim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever since the night of Aug. 25, 2020, when two people were shot dead in the streets of Kenosha and a third person seriously wounded, the question hasn't been who did it but whether Antioch teenager Kyle Rittenhouse would get away with it.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mandalorian actress, Gina Carano, mocked putting pronouns in twitter bios, and doubled down even after her costar, Pedro Pascal, explained them to her. Pascal has a trans sister, Lux Pascal. Carano was eventually fired from The Mandalorian after comparing having to wear a mask to the holocaust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Mandalorian star Gina Carano has come under fire for mocking the usage of pronouns in her Twitter bio. The former MMA fighter added "boop/bop/beep" to her name in a poorly conceived joke on people sharing their preferred pronouns. And when called out for it, Carano claimed she supported trans people, but refused to change her bio.

Carano is not alone in questioning why people are including their pronouns in their bios, their email signatures, and their introductions. We do so because when cis people share their pronouns, it hopefully makes it easier for trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming folks to do the same. In GLAAD's "Tips for Allies" guide, they encourage folks to share their pronouns because "This sends the message that you are not making assumptions about anyone's gender, and that people are free to self-identify."

MyPronouns.org articulates exactly why sharing pronouns is good allyship:

"Sharing your own pronouns is a great idea, but it isn't requisite. Keep in mind, however, that there is a privilege of appearing in a way that fits both your gender and the pronouns that many people associate with your gender. In other words, if people's assumptions are correct, never having to name those assumptions begins to normalize the very process of making assumptions (which for others may be incorrect). Thus, sharing pronouns is a great way to disrupt the normalization and privilege of assumption."

Is Gina Carano, or anyone, required to share their pronouns? Of course not. And if she posted the joke out of ignorance, out of not understanding why pronouns matter, that would be one thing. But Carano admitted that her co-star Pedro Pascal had explained why pronouns matter. Carano wrote, "I didn't know before, but I do now. I won't be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose."

Look, we've all said and/or done offensive things. We've all had moments of ignorance, cruelty, and lapses in compassion. But hopefully we learn from them and we grow and we do better. But while she claimed to understand the meaning of pronoun usage, she refused to change her message. While she doesn't have to post her pronouns, she also doesn't have to mock others who are. That's when ignorance turns into transphobia and cruelty.

So, Gina Carano spoke to Pedro Pascal who explained pronouns and why people have them in their names and Gina decided to mock that. She really is trash. pic.twitter.com/giQ9agx8Oq

- Shitty Star Wars Posts (@SW_takes) September 13, 2020

It's ok. You deleted it. But I saved it. I'll block out your handle because I don't encourage bullying. See how that works. pic.twitter.com/6hpODBTYKW

- Gina Carano boop/bop/beep (@ginacarano) September 12, 2020

But Carano is no stranger to internet controversy. She was recently criticized for posting anti-Black Lives Matter messages, objecting to face masks, and dismissing concerns about the coronavirus:

The world IS open but no one is allowed to work. Working is a right you, as an American have. It gives us purpose, focus, pride and most importantly a way to support the ones we love. People are dropping like flies from depression and suicide, overdoses, MURDER. Enough already.

- Gina Carano boop/bop/beep (@ginacarano) September 6, 2020

How is oppressing others a good way to take a stand against oppression? Unless this years chaos is not solely about oppression & it obviously is not solely about a pandemic or we'd all be dead.
2020 is an election year. America. Take back your freedom. Protect the free world.

- Gina Carano boop/bop/beep (@ginacarano) September 6, 2020

Many took to social media to call out Carano for her transphobic profile:

"I❤️don't❤️encourage❤️bullying❤️" says @ginacarano while she dismisses the bullying that trans people face and refuses to call out her supporters who send death threats to minors.

- ris✨ceo of kanera✨ (@targaryenjedii) September 12, 2020

What Gina Carano is doing with her platform, which includes mocking trans folks, spreading lies about masks, and coyly disparaging BLM, is wrong.

This isn't a matter of "let her have an opinion." These are harmful ideas, exponentially so when spoken from such a platform as hers.

- Abigail James (@aDillonDev) September 13, 2020

The bar is in hell, Cmon Gina Carano, it costs zero dollars and about 3 seconds of thought to not mock trans people. Transphobia isn't funny and even the smallest show of support can mean the world. https://t.co/ZIctbUdfBj

- Ryder ✨ (@cuddlyryder) September 13, 2020

Anyways @ginacarano you're not going to see this because you blocked me, but your words and actions are hurting people. To everyone else, continue to wear a mask and putting your pronouns in bio because it's the right thing to do ❤️

- Justin (@CSI_KFC) September 13, 2020

if you didn't want to add pronouns to your bio that's FINE you don't have to but why then go out of your way to add fake ones? that just comes off as needlessly cruel

- selene (onlyfans in bio) (@that1spacebitch) September 13, 2020

gina carano can be openly hateful and transphobic but john boyega has to be afraid of being fired for going to a black lives matter protest. what is wrong with this picture?!

- Florence she/her (@GothicEzra) September 13, 2020

gina carano: mocks pronouns, openly transphopic, anti blm, anti mask, trump supporter, blocks people trying to educate her and is an overall horrible person
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
pedro pascal: pic.twitter.com/i1f8X9OjJH

- ceo of badass latinos in space ♡ (@djarinsmcu) September 13, 2020

Pedro Pascal and Gina Carano are two perfect examples of being privileged vs being marginalized.
Pedro was born in Chile, his family fled a dictatorship, he is a refugee. He also respects and fights for others rights.
Gina is a white woman born in the US. pic.twitter.com/FJtji7Cl1d

- Kala Elizabeth (@kalaelizabeth) September 9, 2020

Gina Carano, man. Just...what a bummer.

- Geek Girl Diva (@geekgirldiva) September 13, 2020

tw // transphobia

gina carano now lying. people were angry because she supported mocking users for having pronouns in their bios by calling us weirdos and freaks. and now she pulls the beep/bop/boop crap pic.twitter.com/6MB6bJJ8b0

- Jackie * Pedro's tattoos * she/her (@DinsDarksaber) September 13, 2020

I have ascended to new Twitter heights, Gina Carano, who plays the badass Cara in #TheMandalorian, blocked me for pointing out the fact that masks are not a matter of choice out in public. I'm sure she's a lovely person irl, but her comments are founded on ignorance. Oh well pic.twitter.com/ASHJYBL4Fv

- la PC de Henry Cavill (@xAndreaBan) September 9, 2020

What's all the more frustrating is that Carano is playing the victim here. Girl, you started it by doubling down on mocking trans people! You're well within your rights to post offensive and ignorant stuff, but you can't act shocked when people call you out for it.

Gina Carano saying stuff like "don't judge" and "don't harrass" then literally mocks an act that is done to support transgender people..... the transphobia is strong in this one.

- someone put a bounty on me so mando can come here (@bodhisoftrook) September 13, 2020

This just ... sucks. I liked Gina Carano. I really liked Cara Dune, and was excited to see her have more of a presence in season 2 of The Mandalorian. Thanks to the smash hit series, Carano now has an ever-growing platform and a fan base for which she could model compassionate behavior. She could set a positive example, but she chooses not to.

Oh well, at least baby Yoda remains an unproblematic king.

(image: screencap/Twitter)
Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site! -The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.- Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gina Carano Called Out for Transphobic Twitter Presence | The Mary Sue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Mandalorian star Gina Carano has come under fire for mocking the usage of pronouns in her Twitter bio. The former MMA fighter added "boop/bop/beep" to her name in a poorly conceived joke on people sharing their preferred pronouns. And when called out for it, Carano claimed she supported trans people, but refused to change her bio.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas banned abortion at 6 weeks, which is before most women even know they are pregnant. And offered $10,000 bounties for information on women who received an abortion and their medical provider.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Texas abortion ban does — and what it means for other states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The law bans abortions as early as six weeks after conception and allows Texans to sue anyone who aids, abets or performs an abortion past that mark.

# data[].attributes.body
A new trend on TikTok has women creators comparing old photographs with their current style. They share initial pictures in line with that of the male gaze when they felt they were dressing to please men, and then frame current styles as those that break from that and they dress to please themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's set the scene: you are arriving home from a monotonous workday. You throw down your belongings and flop wearily onto your couch. Recognizing how an outside viewer may perceive your disheveled state causes you to smooth your unruly hair and your clothes to accentuate the curves on your body. You now look beautiful for the idea that someone may being watching, judging. You feel the presence of the male gaze.

The Male Monocle

The male gaze has its persistent claws stuck into the flesh of our society - the concept is a key player in feminist theory, describing the way women and non-men are viewed as sexual objects through the hegemonic male perspective. However, recently the concept has been addressed on social media.

On TikTok, a trend has been going around where creators compare old self photographs with their current physical expression and style. For the large part, TikTokers share initial pictures in line with the ideals of the male gaze and then frame current styles as those that break free from the gaze's grasp. Thusly, the trend has birthed an ideology - the female gaze.

While not a new concept, the female gaze has been reinvented by TikTok into its own aesthetic that seeks to push beyond the boundaries of the binary. TikTok's female gaze does so by calling in a multitude of concepts including gender aesthetics, patriarchal norms, compulsory heterosexuality, identity and intention. With that glued in mind, what does TikTok's female gaze actually entail?

Aesthetics and Intentions

"I only ever found my personal style when I stopped dressing for male validation and the male gaze because it was boring," TikTok creator @lilrotini comments in her video, with over 285 thousand users liking in agreement. The fashion stylist Arabella breaks down her past fashion choices and explains how she consciously dressed for a male audience, wearing "things that would show my body off, but they never were really cool."

In the sea of videos following this trend, users' appearances for male validation have some key visual similarities. Outfits are very simple, form-fitting and grace a muted, pastel color palate. Users typically wore minimal layers in favor of high-waisted pants with a cropped shirt combo. T-shirts are often V-neck, makeup is simple and feminine and boldness is avoided.

Beyond the visual cues of the male gaze, intention also plays a big role in its definition. "The goal was for people to say, 'She's so hot!' not [to use] my platform to express myself," comments user @lexie_jayy. For her, the intention behind her appearance was what connected her to the male gaze and not necessarily what she was wearing.

"Even though I'm still wearing a micro mini dress it's not giving, 'Oh my god, can I be your girlfriend?' It's giving 'bad b*tch,'" she said in reference to her most recent outfit choices. Lexie makes an important discovery - the trend frames a narrative that clothes equate to gender and that certain articles pertain to certain perspectives. This mindset can be extremely harmful, and it's important to remember that clothes are simply clothes, and that ideologies rest in intentions.

That being said, the simplistic and performatively feminine debonair of TikTok's male gaze is on the opposite side of the globe from TikTok's female gaze. Users are camp with clashing patterns and bold colors. Androgyny is emphasized, and many users opt for shorter haircuts, such as with the recent revival of the mullet. Graphic eyeliner and swipes of glitter across the eyelids replace the neutrality of male gaze makeup. The most defining feature of TikTok's female gaze is the abandonment of constrictions and the push beyond expectation.

Beyond The Binary

Beyond the harboring of aesthetics, the TikTok trend's version of the female gaze pushes the boundaries of gender expectations. Highlighting physical expectations for non-men within the male gaze establishes our society's nature as a compulsively heterosexual one. A norm is established, as featured by the trend, and we can truly see its impact on what we are expected to dress like based on binary gender.

The trend of the female gaze is one that exists beyond the confinements of heterosexual male preference and beyond the expectations of binary gender expression. However, the name itself begs a certain question: should a gaze that strives to look beyond binary gender be gendered itself?

The trend truly emphasizes the decisive action of dressing for oneself rather than to please a male audience. This action reaches beyond the realm of gender expectations and feminist theory. In their essay "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory," gender theorist and philosopher Judith Butler stresses the idea that gender is inherently a performance.

Butler explains that sex and gender are separate, and that gender is a set of constructed ideals that are passed on from generation to generation. TikTok's female gaze is a prime example of a recent move outside of this inherited gender. It promotes a personal expression that stems from internal motivations rather than from hegemonic pressures.

Far beyond looking through the lenses of the male and female gaze, we can start to look at a world that exists beyond the constrictions of a gender binary in pursuit of individual identity. TikTok, however unlikely, is breaking down those barriers in giving this trend a platform to take shape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TikTok Trend of 'The Female Gaze' Highlights Gender Freedom and Expression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's set the scene: you are arriving home from a monotonous workday. You throw down your belongings and flop wearily onto your couch. Recognizing how an outside viewer may perceive your disheveled state causes you to smooth your unruly hair and your clothes to accentuate the curves on your body.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Styles debuted as the first-ever male cover star of Vogue and donned a dress for the occasion. Immediately it started conversations around masculinity and gendered dressing, with Candace Owens tweeting, "Bring Back Manly Men." But what defines manly? Why can't men embrace both the masculine and feminine?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Friday, storied fashion publication US Vogue made history by featuring British pop singer (and former One Direction heartthrob) Harry Styles as its first-ever male cover star.

The cover immediately sparked passionate conversations around masculinity and gendered dressing: Styles dons a voluminous periwinkle blue gown paired with a black tuxedo jacket (both designed by Gucci).

The image felt representative of a growing exploration of gender-fluidity and non-binary dressing taking place, popular among the very millennial and Gen-Z shoppers Vogue is targeted towards. However, prominent conservatives - from Candace Owens to Ben Shapiro - voiced disapproval of Styles wearing dresses. Owens wrote on her Twitter page Friday evening: "Bring back manly men."

"There is no society that can survive without strong men," Owens, a rightwing media powerhouse, said. "The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack."

Shapiro, a conservative pundit, appeared to agree with Owens' attacks. He shared her tweet and added: "Anyone who pretends this is not a referendum on masculinity for men to don floofy dresses is treating you like a full-on idiot."

Left: "Hey, look how important and magical it is that Harry Styles is wearing a dress! He's subversively undermining masculinity!"
Right: "Yes, men wearing dresses does undermine masculinity, and that's bad."
Left: "HOW DARE YOU SAY MEN WEARING DRESSES UNDERMINES MASCULINITY?!"
- Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 16, 2020

These comments fit in with how contested and divisive debates around gender expression have become in the US, even when a massively popular musician such as Styles, who identifies as cisgender, engages in progressive developments.

This is not the first time Styles has played around with fashion in bold ways. The singer wore a black dress by the Japanese brand Commes Des Garçons on the cover of the Guardian Weekend and defended the queer aesthetics of his visual work. "I'm not just sprinkling in sexual ambiguity to be interesting," he said. "I want things to look a certain way. Not because it makes me look gay, or it makes me look straight, or it makes me look bisexual, but because I think it looks cool."

Fellow Hollywood stars were quick to come to Styles' defense. Olivia Wilde, who is currently directing a Styles-led film, replied to Owens' tweets with: "You're pathetic." And The Good Place actress Jameela Jamil tweeted out in Styles' defense: "Manly is whatever you want it to be."

Meanwhile, others have argued Styles cover may not be enough for increasing acceptance towards non-binary expression and identities. "Harry Styles' Vogue cover may be historic, but it isn't radical," the Daily Beast declared in a headline. If this is the furor a white, cis man wearing a dress on Vogue breeds, it is hard to imagine what a model from a marginalized background - say, a trans woman of color (which Vogue has yet to feature on its cover) - would face.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harry Styles wore a dress on the cover of Vogue - and US rightwingers lost it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The magazine made history by featuring the musician as its first-ever male cover star - but prominent conservatives voiced disapproval over what he was wearing

# data[].attributes.body
With her child's permission, Busy Phillips is using her platform to talk about parenting her gay, non-binary child. Busy is helping to rid the stigma her child faces, as well as being open and honest about how she isn't a perfect parent, but is doing what parents to all children should do, try their best.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Busy Philipps hasn't totally gotten used to using her child's they/them pronouns yet, but she's getting there.

On a recent episode of her podcast Busy Philipps is Doing Her Best, the actress opened up about Birdie, the eldest of her two children, coming out as gay and non-binary.

Birdie, who gave their mom permission to talk about all of this this publicly, is 12 years old now. They were 10 when they first came out to Philipps and her husband, screenwriter Marc Silverstein. Recently, Birdie shared their pronouns.

"I've been doing a bad job with the pronouns," Philipps admitted. In part, that's because the actress, author and media personality shares a lot about her home life and kids on her social media accounts, but didn't want to discuss Birdie's identity without explicit permission.

"I have this public persona, and I want Birdie to be in control of their own narrative, and not have to answer to anybody outside of our friends and family, if they don't want to," Philipps explained. But when she asked Birdie whether they were comfortable with Philipps discussing this aspect of their life, she said, "Bird was like, 'I don't give a fuck. You can talk about that I'm gay and out; you can talk about my pronouns. That would be cool with me. That's great.'"

"So, Birdie, my out kid, [uses] they/them. I fuck up sometimes, but I'm trying my best."

One of the podcast's co-hosts, writer Shantira Jackson, agreed that changing the pronouns you use to refer to someone can sometimes be a bumpy ride, but shared some of her tips.

"It's like any other muscle, any other new language, any other new thing," Jackson said. "You will get right at it, and it will become second nature."

Practice makes perfect

To speed up that process, Jackson suggested practicing at home, by saying the person's name out loud with their new pronoun, and using it in sentence to "try to connect that part of my brain with that pronoun": Birdie talked to their parents, Birdie said they're looking forward to next summer.

Jackson has friends who have changed pronouns recently, she said, and she knows she won't see them in person for a long time. The goal is to have their pronouns down by the time she does hang out with them again. "I'm not gonna see you for a year, but when I see you, I'll have worked on it," she explained.

She's also trying to use gendered pronouns less in general so as not to assume anyone's gender identity. Replacing a pronoun with someone's name is easy enough in conversation, she said. And she'll try to say "y'all" or "folks" instead of "ladies and gentlemen" or "you guys."

MORE ON SUPPORTING TRANS AND NON-BINARY KIDS

These are small things anyone can do, even if there isn't a trans or non-binary person in their life right now, Jackson said. Many people don't identify with the gender they were assigned at birth; preparing yourself to be supportive if someone in your life lets you know their pronouns are changing can be an act of allyship.

Philipps called that observation of Jackson's "a great fucking point."

Especially after 2020, a year that opened a lot of people's eyes about civil rights, people will sometimes wonder what it means to "do the work," when it comes to recognizing privilege or helping marginalized communities.

A lot of the time, the answer is "figure it out yourself," Phillips said. "But here's a thing you can do" to be a better ally.

"It's not their burden to bear for you to figure out how to say they/them," Jackson said.

"Nor is it their burden to have the conversation with you [about] why," Philipps replied.

"And if you find that you're like, 'I don't want to do it,' you should go to therapy and talk about it," Jackson added.

There are likely going to be some people who don't want to practice pronoun use, or who feel they shouldn't have to "put in the work," said the podcast's other co-host, Caissie St. Onge. But she pointed out that coming up with reasons you shouldn't have to understand or be inclusive is work, too. Resistance to established medical research and basic human dignity also takes a lot of time and energy.

"You're putting in a lot of work to stay the same," St. Onge said.

Philipps also talked about a recent conversation she had with Birdie when they were feeling down, talking about how they felt like they were alive, but not really living yet.

Near tears, she talked about how much she related to what Birdie was saying, and added what she relayed to her child.

"You get to build your life however the fuck you want to," Philipps said. "And it doesn't have to look like anything you've ever seen, or anything that's ever been modelled for you, because maybe it doesn't exist... It doesn't have to be any of these constructs that we've all been fed our whole lives. This is a different world, that you get to fucking build."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Busy Philipps Shares How She Plans To Support Her Gay, Non-Binary Kid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Busy Philipps hasn't totally gotten used to using her child's they/them pronouns yet, but she's getting there. On a recent episode of her podcast Busy Philipps is Doing Her Best, the actress opened up about Birdie, the eldest of her two children, coming out as gay and non-binary.

# data[].attributes.body
Violent attacks and harassment toward Asian Americans have increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Anti-Asian racism isn't new. Centuries of anti-Asian racism in the United States have led to this moment, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. This violence however is partly attributed to xenophobic rhetoric that connects the COVID-19 pandemic with Asian Americans, including the blaming of the virus on China by former President Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to 1A podcast

subscribe to 1A podcast

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, violent attacks and harassment toward Asian Americans have spiked.

Stop AAPI Hate tracks reports of violence against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Since the start of the pandemic, they've received reports of over 2,800 hate incident s across the United States.

Hate crimes against Asian Americans in 16 cities rose by 150 percent in 2020, a recent report from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino revealed. These incidents range from violent attacks and verbal abuse to the vandalization of Asian-owned businesses.

Advocates are attributing the spate of violence partly to xenophobic rhetoric that connects the COVID-19 pandemic with Asian Americans, which includes former President Donald Trump's habit of blaming the virus on China.

But anti-Asian racism isn't new. Centuries of anti-Asian racism in the United States have led to this moment.

What's behind the rise in anti-Asian attacks? And what might our past tell us about the fight to be seen and to feel safe?

Li Zhou, Anne Anlin Cheng and Manju Kulkarni join us for the conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise In Anti-Asian Attacks During The COVID-19 Pandemic : 1A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, racism and harassment toward Asian Americans have increased. But anti-Asian racism isn't new and this uptick of violence forces us to examine the centuries of hate that has led to this moment.

# data[].attributes.body
The average white family today has about ten times the amount of wealth as the average Black family. If we are going to make "the American Dream" a reality for all Americans the U.S. government that denied wealth to Black Americans needs to correct that current disparity through reparations to their descendants in the form of individual cash payments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we need reparations for Black Americans | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rashawn Ray and Andre Perry outline the history of reparations in the United States, missed opportunities to redress the racial wealth gap, and specific details for a viable reparations package for Black Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
STEM has been a field dominated by men, as even as little as 50 years ago people still believed that men were better suited for jobs because of their biology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women in STEM: 3 Challenges we face ̶ and how to overcome them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CNBC’s Sharon Epperson looks at the pay gap between white men and black women and how it adds up over time.

# data[].attributes.body
When Pete Buttigieg took paternity leave to care for his newborn twins with husband Chasten, the internet exploded. "Paternity leave, they call it," Carlson said, "trying to learn how to breastfeed. No word on how that went." It's truly shocking the number of men who mocked a man for caring for his children, as they are so clearly outing themselves as clueless fathers, who must have left the work of caring for their children entirely up to the mothers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fox News host Tucker Carlson mocked Pete Buttigieg for taking paternity leave.

Carlson equated Buttigieg, who is gay, taking paternity leave to "learning how to breastfeed."

Fox News hosts such as Jesse Watters have previously bragged about the network offering paternity leave.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson went after Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for taking paternity leave during Thursday night's show, mocking the gay father of twins for "learning how to breastfeed."

"Pete Buttigieg has been on leave from his job since August after adopting a child," Carlson said, incorrectly stating that Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, adopted one child when they actually adopted twin newborns.

"Paternity leave, they call it," he continued, "trying to learn how to breastfeed. No word on how that went."

-nikki mccann screamírez 👻 (@NikkiMcR) October 15, 2021

Back in September, Pete and Chasten Buttigieg announced they became parents of a son and daughter after over a year of navigating the adoption process.

The transportation secretary returned to the job this month.

-Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) September 4, 2021

Carlson also took umbrage at Buttigieg for telling "kind of a funny little dorky dad story" about last minute Christmas shopping when asked about supply chain issues during a CNN appearance.

-RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 13, 2021

"That's not the point, Pete Buttigieg," Carlson said. "The point is, you're the transportation secretary, and our transportation grid is broken. And people can't get Christmas presents for their kids, or food that they want to eat, or things that they would like to buy."

Representatives for Carlson and Buttigieg did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.

The White House defended Buttigieg on Friday, with Press Secretary Jen Psaki calling Butigieg a role model.

-Jen Psaki (@PressSec) October 15, 2021

Studies have found parental leave to have both economic and childhood developmental benefits, and there is no evidence suggesting they apply less to same sex couples.

Both male and female Fox News personalities have previously attested to the network offering them parental leave, such as "Fox & Friends" host Ainsley Earhardt and " The Five" co-host Jesse Watters.

"Now I am pro-paternity," Watters said on-air back in April. "I used to mock people for taking paternity, I used to think it was a big ruse, but now, ya know, I wish I could take six weeks."

The network currently offers six weeks of paid leave to both mothers and fathers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tucker Carlson mocks Pete Buttigieg's paternity leave as 'learning how to breastfeed'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fox News host Tucker Carlson mocked Pete Buttigieg for taking paternity leave. Carlson equated Buttigieg, who is gay, taking paternity leave to "learning how to breastfeed." Fox News hosts such as Jesse Watters have previously bragged about the network offering paternity leave.

# data[].attributes.body
The search for the 22-year-old white woman, Gabby Petito, became an internet sensation and a lead story for major news outlets, while the ongoing crisis of missing and murdered Native American women doesn't get the attention paid to Gabby Petito.
Media coverage of homicides of indigenous people is more likely to use violent language and portray the victim in negative light. Homicide is the third-leading cause of death among Native women who are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sept 22 (Reuters) - Activists lament that the crisis of missing and murdered Native American women doesn't get the attention paid to Gabby Petito.

FBI agents found Petito's body in Wyoming on Sunday after she went missing during a road trip with her fiancé. The search for the 22-year-old white woman, who chronicled her trip on social media, became an internet sensation and a lead story for major news outlets.

"There's a rate of violence against Native women that's happening and it doesn't seem to be highlighted," Jolene Holgate, a director for the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women, told New Mexico television station KRQE on Tuesday.

"My heart goes out to the family of Gabby Petito. I know they're probably looking for closure and that's very important," said Holgate.

"The national attention and resources that were put toward that case when there's such a high number of MMIW (missing and murdered indigenous women) cases in Wyoming and even the neighboring state of Montana, it did not feel good. I think there's this practice of discounting indigenous bodies when it comes to folks who go missing or murdered."

In Wyoming, the state where Petito's body was found, only 18% of indigenous female homicide victims get newspaper coverage, compared with 51% for white female and male victims, according to a state report.

Between 2011 and September 2020, more than 400 indigenous women and girls were reported missing in Wyoming, according to the report.

Homicide is the third-leading cause of death among Native women who are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average, according to federal data.

Media coverage of homicides of indigenous people was more likely to use violent language and portray the victim in negative light, according to the Wyoming report. Commentators have noted that coverage of missing Black, Hispanic and other women who are not white is similarly sparse and loaded.

Investigations into violence against Native peoples have been underfunded for decades, with murders and missing persons cases often unsolved and unaddressed, according to U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to hold the position. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which runs law enforcement on Indian lands, is part of Interior.

Earlier this year, Haaland set up a Missing and Murdered Unit. The multi-agency taskforce will investigate a crisis she said was "centuries in the making."

Reporting By Andrew Hay in Taos, New Mexico; Editing by Donna Bryson and Cynthia Osterman

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As Petito case captivates U.S., missing Native women ignored

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sept 22 (Reuters) - Activists lament that the crisis of missing and murdered Native American women doesn't get the attention paid to Gabby Petito. FBI agents found Petito's body in Wyoming on Sunday after she went missing during a road trip with her fiancé.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kardashian sisters have a long history of appropriating black women, but to really understand why this is an issue you have to understand that Black women and their bodies have been exploited and degraded for centuries. The Kardashian's white privilege allows them to adopt Black aesthetics without having the lived experience of a Black woman.  “There’s a reason why they’ve done this and why they have made money on this,” Ayanna Thompson says. “That’s the ultimate power of whiteness, right? That I can like these things, which we may want to denigrate, but I don’t have to stay there. I get to come back to the safety of whiteness.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Kardashians' Legacy of Blackfishing and Appropriation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'It's no secret that they've adopted many styles that Black women have created and made them more palatable'

# data[].attributes.body
Robert Aaron Long is accused of killing eight people in the shootings, six of whom are of Asian descent, that took place on March 16 in Atlanta and Cherokee County, Georgia. In initial interviews with investigators, Long claimed to have a "sex addiction." Authorities said he allegedly lashed out at the spa businesses that he viewed as a sexual temptation. This was violent crime against women, but also specifically a hate crime against Asian women, who long have dealt with being hypersexualized.

# data[].attributes.body
On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, was fatally shot while jogging in a residential are near Brunswick, Georgia. Arbery had been pursued by three white residents, Travis McMichael and his father Gregory, who were armed and driving a pickup truck, and William "Roddie" Bryan, who followed Arbery in a second vehicle. As Arbery ran to the left in front of the pickup truck, he was confronted and shot by Travis McMichael because they believed he could be responsible for break ins in the and they were "startled" by his presence in the neighborhood. It took 74 days for Arbery's killers to be arrested, and only after a video of the shooting was released online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trial in the death of Ahmaud Arbery | Live Stream Day 7

# data[].attributes.body
Two actresses, Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, are at the center of the college admissions scandal, where wealthy parents are alleged to have paid millions of dollars to have their children's test scores and athletic achievements falsified to get them into elite colleges such as Yale University and the University of Southern California.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated at 4:15 p.m. ET
Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin made their initial appearances in federal court in Boston on Wednesday for their alleged roles in a massive college admissions fraud that has sent shock waves through the U.S. higher education system.

Neither woman entered a plea during what was a brief appearance, reports Kirk Carapezza of member station WGBH. As the hearing got underway, he adds, Loughlin smiled as she shook hands with federal prosecutors.

Eleven other wealthy parents allegedly involved in the scheme were also scheduled to appear at the same session, including Loughlin's husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli.

The two actresses are the most high-profile faces of the admissions scandal, in which parents allegedly paid millions of dollars to have their children's test scores and athletic achievements falsified to get them into elite colleges such as Yale University and the University of Southern California. Huffman is best known for her role in the dark comedy series Desperate Housewives, while Loughlin starred in the family comedy Full House.

The 13 parents in court Wednesday are among a total of 33 parents accused of participating in the scheme - all of them charged with conspiracy to commit mail and honest services mail fraud. None of their children has been charged.

Neither Loughlin nor Huffman has publicly discussed the allegations since the charges were announced on March 12. Perry Viscounty, a lawyer for Loughlin and Giannulli, told NPR that his clients will not be making any comments outside the Boston courtroom. Huffman's lawyers did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.

Huffman was arrested March 12 and released on $250,000 bond on condition that she surrender her passport. Her husband, actor William H. Macy, has not been charged. Loughlin was arrested and released the following day; her bail was set at $1 million, and her travel was restricted to the continental U.S. and British Columbia.

"If convicted, Loughlin, Huffman [and] Giannulli ... could face a maximum of 20 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine, though they could receive shorter sentences as first-time offenders," Carapezza reports.

Federal authorities have charged 50 people for alleged roles in the fraud that, according to court records, lasted from 2011 through February 2019.

The man at the center of the scandal, Rick Singer, has pleaded guilty and has been cooperating with authorities since late 2018, according to court records.

In documents stretching more than 250 pages, federal authorities detailed the scheme in which, they said, parents paid vast sums to have Singer and his associates falsify their children's standardized tests scores or bribe coaches to have their children designated as athletic recruits.

The parents paid some $25 million, which was used to bribe coaches and administrators over the course of the scam, according to the prosecutors.

Loughlin and her husband are accused of paying $500,000 to ensure that their two daughters were designated as crew recruits to the University of Southern California. The daughters did not row competitively, but the family allegedly supplied photos of both working out on ergometers.

Huffman allegedly paid a comparatively smaller amount, $15,000, to boost her daughter's SAT score. According to court documents, an associate of Singer flew across the country to inflate her score - "either by correcting the student's answers after the test or by actively assisting the student during the exam."

Among the 50 people accused are nine college coaches and a university administrator. Stanford University's former sailing coach, John Vandemoer, and Yale's former women's soccer coach have pleaded guilty, while many of the other coaches have pleaded not guilty.

Since prosecutors announced charges against Loughlin, she and her daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli have lost business deals. The Hallmark Channel swiftly cut ties with Loughlin, who starred in the series When Calls the Heart, after the charges were announced.

"We are saddened by the recent news surrounding the college admissions allegations," Hallmark's parent company, Crown Media Family Networks, said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "We are no longer working with Lori Loughlin and have stopped development of all productions that air on the Crown Media Family Network channels involving Lori Loughlin, including Garage Sale Mysteries, an independent third-party production."

Olivia Jade, a beauty vlogger with nearly 2 million subscribers, has lost deals with Sephora and TRESemmé.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin Appear In Court Over College Admissions Scandal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated at 4:15 p.m. ET Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin made their initial appearances in federal court in Boston on Wednesday for their alleged roles in a massive college admissions fraud that has sent shock waves through the U.S. higher education system.

# data[].attributes.body
Britt Dorton lives with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a hereditary degenerative disorder that affects her connective tissue, and complex regional pain syndrome, or CRPS, an acquired chronic nerve pain disorder. She breaks down how much living with disability costs, and how expensive it is just to exist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of CNBC Make It's Millennial Money series, which details how people around the world earn, spend and save their money.
Britt Dorton, 25, is meticulous about her budget. She has multiple spreadsheets to document her earnings, bills and goals, and feels comfortable knowing every dollar is accounted for.

For Dorton, planning ahead financially has been a huge part of her life since she was diagnosed with two chronic illnesses as a teenager. Dorton lives with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a hereditary degenerative disorder that affects her connective tissue, and complex regional pain syndrome, or CRPS, an acquired chronic nerve pain disorder.

"My disabilities affect every aspect of my life, including my finances," Dorton tells CNBC Make It. "Unless you have lived with a chronic illness or somebody that you love has, I don't think a lot of people realize how expensive it is to be sick or to be disabled."

There are obvious medical costs - doctor's appointments (Dorton gets spinal injections three to four times a year to manage her pain, which cost $1,200 per session), medications ($60 to $150 per month), emergency hospital stays ($300 per visit) - totaling several thousand dollars per year.

There are also a lot of hidden costs like physical therapy, braces, orthopedic shoes to prevent dislocations, an Apple Watch to track Dorton's heart rate and oxygen levels, or ergonomic equipment so she can work from home.

Here's how Dorton balances health-care costs, everyday expenses and her plans to attend law school while living on $33,000 a year in Chicago.

Making a living in Chicago

Dorton graduated from the University of Chicago in 2020 and began working for a legal aid clinic. Over the summer, she quit and took a part-time paralegal job at a civil rights firm so she could focus on studying for the LSAT. After taking the entrance exam in October, she transitioned to working for the firm full-time.

She also earns up to $1,200 per month through side hustles, including doing freelance social media work for an attorney, being a sensitivity reader for a YA novel about chronic illness and disability, and running ads and sponsored content on her personal social media platforms.

Dorton won't start law school for another year, but it's already a huge factor in her budget. She's spent nearly $3,000 on prep courses, taking the LSAT and law school application fees before even stepping foot on campus. Then there's the estimated $200,000 sticker price of tuition, which she hopes to cover through as many scholarships, grants, fellowships and other forms of financial aid as possible, before inevitably turning to student loans.

Dorton doesn't expect to earn a lot of money once she becomes a lawyer - she wants to do pro bono public interest work advocating for disability and prisoner's rights. It's not exactly a lucrative field.

"As someone who's chronically ill and disabled myself, working for my community and advocating for disability justice is something that's really important to me," Dorton says.

Living on just $33,000 in Chicago forces Dorton to be strict with her budget, but "it's not impossible."

Housing: $1,016 for rent on a studio apartment and electricity

Discretionary: $231 on shopping, entertainment, LSAT prep courses, and donations to disability advocacy and prisoner's rights groups

Savings: $160

Medical debt: $150 toward her $2,500 balance

Food: $135 for groceries and takeout

Subscriptions: $34 for Amazon Prime, Adobe and Spotify

Subway: $5

How she spends her money

Here's a look at how Dorton typically spends her money, as of September 2021.

Dorton's biggest expense is paying just over $1,000 to live on her own in a high-rise building. The cost is worthwhile for her health - living with roommates during the pandemic as a high-risk person wasn't good for her wellbeing, she says, and she must live in an accessible building with an elevator, which limits her options for more affordable spaces.

Dorton cut back on her social spending during the pandemic by cooking at home and walking instead of taking public transit or ride shares. She currently saves 10% of her take-home pay, or $160 in September, in an account she opened during college, where she's stashed nearly $15,000.

Dorton feels fortunate to still be on her parents' health insurance plan, but that will end when she turns 26 next year, and she'll have to find coverage through law school. She spends $300 to $500 on medical care per month, which she puts on a payment plan. She pays $150 toward her medical debt each month, which has a balance of $2,500. She doesn't think she'll ever pay it off.

"A lot of the work I put into paying off that debt gets canceled out by the ongoing expenses," Dorton says.

Dorton also has $6,000 in remaining student debt from undergrad, but isn't making payments on her federal loans while they're paused until January 31.

Despite her big recurring expenses, Dorton balances between discipline and fun. "If living with chronic illness has taught me anything, it's that life is very unpredictable, and it's important to enjoy it while you can," she says.

She makes room in her budget for hobbies like baking, painting and experiences with friends. Her latest splurge: concert tickets to see Lorde on tour in Chicago.

Living with chronic illness is unpredictable

The astronomical cost of care is a big focus of Dorton's advocacy work.

"Nobody should have to choose between getting the care that they need or going to see a doctor and paying other expenses," Dorton says. "But with the cost of medical care in the States, unfortunately, that's a decision that myself and many other people have had to make."

She also wants to confront the misconception of what people think it means to live with chronic illness, sometimes referred to as an invisible disability.

Dorton's symptoms aren't always obvious. With Ehlers-Danlos, she can experience pain and dislocation due to simple activities like sitting or standing for too long. With CRPS, she has a constant burning feeling in her left leg, which she rates at a seven or eight on a 10-point pain scale.

"Just because I look fine doesn't mean that there's not something going on underneath," Dorton says. "When you live with chronic illnesses, you get really good at faking well .... But I wish more people understood that just because we're smiling, we're working, we're going throughout our day, it doesn't mean that we're not dealing with pain on a regular basis."

Financially independent at 19

Dorton grew up outside Cincinnati, Ohio,knowing she'd pretty much be on her own financially after high school. Her parents never opened a college savings account for her, so she was on the hook to get scholarships, financial aid and part-time jobs in order to pay for college.

Days before she was supposed to move away to college, she dislocated her left knee and destroyed the ligaments just by standing for an extended period of time.

While she'd experienced spontaneous joint dislocations since middle school and saw specialists over the years, the accident was the first time medical professionals determined it was caused by Ehlers-Danlos and prescribed a management plan.She took a gap year to undergo three surgeries and daily physical therapy.

Now, on top of paying for college on her own, she had medical expenses, too.

By 19, Dorton was an expert in deciphering insurance plans and hospital bills. Some nights, she debated whether her pain was bad enough to warrant a trip to the emergency room, and if so, what she'd have to cut out of her budget to afford the co-pay.

Discussing the cost of care with her parents, and the stress it puts on her budget, is a touchy subject, Dorton says. Her parents try to help her find ways to cut expenses, but they aren't able to provide financial support beyond covering her insurance premiums.

These days, Dorton surrounds herself with friends who understand her illness and can lend support by sending an encouraging text or staying with her in the hospital. "It definitely means a lot to me to know that I have people on my side, that I have a community who can be there for me, even when my family is states away and I'm navigating these big and scary things on my own."

Looking ahead

Dorton's short-term financial goal is to have enough savings to cover her living expenses during law school. She wants to graduate with as little student debt as possible and eventually pay it off. She doesn't think she'll ever fully pay down her medical debt, but she'll continue chipping away at it.

I want to be in a place where when medical emergencies come up, I'm not having to think, can I afford this?

She doesn't expect a big corporate salary after graduation, but feels her chosen career path is "worth it because it's the work that I care so much about, advocating for the communities that I care about, so I've been preparing for that financial burden."

With time, she hopes to start investing, saving for retirement, and making bigger charitable contributions on a regular basis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a 25-year-old with a disability lives on $33,000 in Chicago: 'People don't realize how expensive it is to be disabled'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story is part of CNBC Make It's Millennial Money series, which details how people around the world earn, spend and save their money. Britt Dorton, 25, is meticulous about her budget. She has multiple spreadsheets to document her earnings, bills and goals, and feels comfortable knowing every dollar is accounted for.

# data[].attributes.body
The Equal Rights Amendment has not been added to the Constitution—even though it passed both houses of Congress by a 9–1 margin in 1972, far more than the needed two-thirds majority. A federal judge on recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic state attorneys general that had sought to force the federal government to recognize Virginia’s vote last year to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and add it to the Constitution. Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment that supporters say will guarantee women equal rights under the law. Constitutional amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 38, but Congress enacted a ratification deadline for the ERA that passed decades ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rep. Maloney in June 2018 at an ERA shadow hearing. (Phi Nguyen)

Imagine for a moment that the Equal Rights Amendment had become part of the U.S. Constitution soon after Congress in 1972 sent it to the states for ratification.

Many heartbreaking events would have been prevented, for both women and men. Young women would have the same opportunities and pay as their male counterparts. People from all marginalized genders likely would be covered under the ERA in a range of employment, public accommodations, housing and healthcare. Women of color and those with disabilities would have additional protections against discrimination. And fewer older women would be living in poverty.

None of that is true today. The ERA has not been added to the Constitution-even though it passed both houses of Congress by a 9-1 margin in 1972, far more than the needed two-thirds majority.

Instead, women's rights have been turned back on a number of fronts, including sexual assault rates, as documented by the #MeToo movement; reproductive health policies; employment practices; and more. Women's paychecks remain smaller than men's for similar work. Many more women must take unpaid leave during pregnancy and childbirth or if ill or caring for others. As income averaging or time on a job often determine retirement packages, older women are at the short end of the retirement stick-if they are lucky enough to receive any retirement income at all.

The ERA was first proposed in 1923 to remedy these injustices, but it languished in a sexist era. Only dogged work by Reps. Martha Griffiths of Michigan, Shirley Chisholm of New York, and other new House members of the 1960s won a joint congressional resolution 50 years ago this month to amend the Constitution-which finally brought the bill to a vote the following March.

The ERA's language is simple:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Just think how those words might have changed the lives of millions of women in low-paying work, providing opportunities for a better education, paths for higher-paying careers, family policies to help raise children, and relief from holding two or three jobs just to make ends meet. Or, think how lives would change if victims of sexual violence could have the right to sue under the Constitution, and about the many brave women who have come forward recently to challenge discrimination and abuse-not just by celebrities like Harvey Weinstein, Andrew Cuomo and Matt Lauer, but also by countless others.

Would male perpetrators have behaved differently if societal norms changed enough during their boyhoods to prevent their misogyny? Think how much energy and potential might have blossomed, and how many careers might have turned out differently, especially for the victims who risk their jobs and personal lives by coming forward to report sexual abuse.

Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) rallying at the steps of the Supreme Court for the Equal Rights Amendment in 2014. (Rep. Maloney / Flickr)

With three states ratifying the ERA in recent years-Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and Virginia in 2020-the amendment has finally met the three-fourths threshold for adoption. Each state that has ratified in the 21st Century has had Democrats and Republicans alike co-sponsoring the bills and voting for ratification. The amendment has met the requirements laid out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Now, the federal government must validate the ratifications of the three final states.

The will of the people of Nevada, Illinois and Virginia-along with the 35 other states that previously ratified the ERA-must be certified by the executive branch. The final step lies with the archivist of the United States, whose job it is to publish and certify any amendment- yet he hasn't done so with the ERA. I urge him to do so without further delay.

The ERA has strong majority support and is popular with the public. A recent poll by the Associated Press found that three-quarters of Americans support the ERA; only 4 percent oppose it. Among Democrats, 89 percent support the ERA and only 1 percent oppose it, while Republicans are at 61 percent support and only 9 percent in opposition. Few issues today have such enthusiastic bipartisan approval.

No one wants to return to the days when women were routinely fired for being pregnant; when admission policies kept most women out of law and medical schools, journalism and executive suites; when women could not get credit in their own names; or when they could land only stereotyped roles in films and media.

But could it happen again? Over the past five years, there have been reversals in Title IX on education, access to reproductive health, legal decisions on domestic violence and more. Establishing "equality of rights under the law" would prevent further roll-backs for today's generation and future ones.

Congress should affirm immediately that there can be no time limit on equality. In March, the House passed H.J. Res. 17, which would eliminate the arbitrary time limit for ERA ratification and remove any shadow of uncertainty about the ERA's validity. A companion measure is pending in the Senate.

Gender equality is not a partisan issue. The ERA is the way to guarantee it, and the time for action is now.
If you found this article helpful, please consider supporting our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifty Years After Passage, the Equal Rights Amendment Is More Important Than Ever - Ms. Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In March, the House passed H.J. Res. 17, which would eliminate the arbitrary time limit for ERA ratification and remove any shadow of uncertainty about the ERA's validity. A companion measure is pending in the Senate.Gender equality is not a partisan issue. The ERA is the way to guarantee it, and the time for action is now.

# data[].attributes.body
When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, 2020 at 87, then President Trump’s promised to name a woman to replace her. But women aren't that interchangeable. And Justice Ginsburg's replacement, Amy Comey Barrett, does not support the causes at the heart of the long, continuing march for gender equality that Justice Ginsburg championed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to the Supreme Court, we've been to this identity politics movie before.

By

Ms. Bazelon is a law professor.

Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

President Trump's promise to name a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18 at 87, was cynical and insulting to the millions of women who view the late Supreme Court justice as a feminist icon. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, praised the decision as a "powerful positive statement" to young women, who would embrace the president's nominee as a "role model." The message to women is clear: Nothing to see here, ladies! One of you is as good as any other.

But Mr. Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is no Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Women aren't gym socks, purchased in bulk so that a replacement can be seamlessly substituted into the rotation when one goes missing in the washing machine. The next Supreme Court justice will cast crucial votes that affect women's fundamental rights, including the right to control their own bodies and to gain access to affordable health care for themselves and their families. The fact that President Trump's nominee is a woman matters less if she does not support the causes at the heart of the long, continuing march for gender equality that Justice Ginsburg championed.

The Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has also vowed to pick a Black woman as his first nominee to the Supreme Court. But he's not going to gaslight us by choosing someone who will share the judicial philosophy of the court's conservative wing, just as no one believed that Mr. Biden's vice-presidential pick - whom he also promised would be female - would be a Republican who repudiated every plank of his platform. (Indeed, Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris - fairly or not - has been denounced by the Trump campaign as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.)

Judge Barrett, who is on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has impeccable intellectual credentials - and a record that stands in stark contrast to Justice Ginsburg's. She has written that abortion is " always immoral," and joined two dissents against decisions supporting the right to choose. One decision stopped the enforcement of a state law that would have required a minor - regardless of her maturity or family situation - to notify her parents of her decision to have an abortion, giving them veto power, unless a judge found this was not in her best interests.

The other decision struck down a state law banning abortions at any stage of pregnancy based on fetal disabilities, including those that were life-threatening. (The law also banned abortions based on race, ethnicity and gender.) Judge Barrett dissented from a ruling banning people with felony convictions from possessing firearms, and publicly criticized Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for voting with the high court's liberal bloc to uphold the Affordable Care Act, saying he pushed the statute " beyond its plausible meaning " to save it.

Make no mistake: Judge Barrett's confirmation will be the wrecking ball that finally smashes Roe v. Wade and undoes the Affordable Care Act. Her crucial vote on these cases and so many others will undo decades of the progress that Justice Ginsburg worked her whole life to achieve.

Justice Ginsburg's most important legacy is that she was a forward-thinking, canny and unabashed feminist. Beginning in the 1970s, as a co-founder of the A.C.L.U.'s Women's Rights Project, she argued six sex-discrimination cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won five. In several of them, she sought to invalidate laws that barred men from taking advantage of certain benefits, driving home the point - to an all-male court - that unequal treatment hurts everyone equally.

She built on that work as a justice. In 2016, she called out Texas' claim that a law sharply curtailing women's access to abortion was actually safeguarding women's health as " beyond rational belief." (The court struck down the law 5-4.) Justice Ginsburg was known as much for the power of her dissents as for the majority opinions she wrote. When the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that a female supervisor at a tire company had waited too long to sue her employer for paying her less than her male colleagues, Justice Ginsburg noted that the secrecy shrouding employee compensation made a timely filing impossible and urged Congress to act. Congress did, and in 2009 President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which did away with stringent and unrealistic time requirements.

Republicans would have us believe that ramming through Justice Ginsburg's replacement less than two months before the election - and after denying President Obama, who had 11 months left in his second term, the chance to replace Justice Antonin Scalia - is fine and dandy because, well, the new justice is a woman. When it comes to the Supreme Court, we've been to this identity politics movie before, and we know how it ends.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a federal appellate judge, to replace Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights warrior who had argued Brown v. Board of Education and then as a justice had written many decisions expanding civil rights and criminal justice protections for racial minorities. (Justice Ginsburg was known as the " Thurgood Marshall of gender equality law.") Republicans predicted, correctly, that Democrats would find themselves in a difficult position because, like Justice Marshall, the nominee was Black.

Although nothing about Judge Thomas's career and judicial record suggested he would be anything like Justice Marshall, and though he faced credible allegations of sexual harassment from Anita Hill, he was confirmed 52 to 48, after accusing Democrats of orchestrating a "high-tech lynching." (In another twist, many blame Mr. Biden - then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - for his bungling of the confirmation hearing and his poor treatment of Ms. Hill.) In his decades on the court, Justice Thomas has become famous for his hostility to civil rights; affirmative action; and most of the claims raised by criminal defendants, who are disproportionately people of color.

On her deathbed, Justice Ginsburg wrote that her " most fervent wish " was that a new justice would not be installed until after the election. It is a cold calculation by the president, a master misogynist, that the nomination of a woman, in and of itself, would be enough to soften any opposition to the ugliness of a rushed, hypocritical and nakedly political charade. Think again Mr. President: We aren't stupid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Amy Coney Barrett Is No Ruth Bader Ginsburg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to the Supreme Court, we've been to this identity politics movie before. By Ms. Bazelon is a law professor. President Trump's promise to name a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18 at 87, was cynical and insulting to the millions of women who view the late Supreme Court justice as a feminist icon.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling came under fire in early June 2020 for controversial tweets she posted about the transgender community. Rowling went on to write a lengthy statement on her website continuing to use trans-exclusionary language and further alienating her fans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Harry Potter author is being criticized for comments she made about the trans community.

Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling came under fire in early June 2020 for controversial tweets she posted about the transgender community. Her stance has caused fans and stars of the wizarding world like Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Eddie Redmayne to speak out against the author. Here's everything you need to know:

What did J.K. Rowling say, exactly?

On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed "people who menstruate," apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. "'People who menstruate.' I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?" she wrote.

That initial tweet garnered a lot of backlash, but the Harry Potter author did not relent and wrote about her views in more detail. "If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth," she tweeted. "The idea that women like me, who've been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they're vulnerable in the same way as women-i.e., to male violence-'hate' trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences-is a nonsense."

She continued, "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it's hateful to say so."

Then, on June 10, 2020, Rowling published a lengthy post on her website and sent out a tweet that read "TERF Wars." (TERF is an acronym that stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist.)

"This isn't an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it's time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity," she wrote. "For people who don't know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who'd lost her job for what were deemed 'transphobic' tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn't."

Rowling explains that she became interested in trans issues while researching a character she's writing. Rowling also outlined "five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism."

The fan backlash:

Rowling's initial tweets and her subsequent doubling down have drawn a lot of ire from trans activists and Harry Potter fans, many of whom had found comfort in the story of an outsider finding a place where he belonged.

The celebrity and industry's initial response:

Radcliffe, Harry Potter himself, was the first star from the franchise to release a statement ( via The Trevor Project) about Rowling's comments.

"I realize that certain press outlets will probably want to paint this as in-fighting between J.K. Rowling and myself," he said, "but that is really not what this is about, nor is it what's important right now. While Jo is unquestionably responsible for the course my life has taken, as someone who has been honored to work with and continues to contribute to The Trevor Project for the last decade, and just as a human being, I feel compelled to say something at this moment. Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I. According to The Trevor Project, 78% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported being the subject of discrimination due to their gender identity. It's clear that we need to do more to support transgender and nonbinary people, not invalidate their identities, and not cause further harm."

He continued, "To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished. I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you. I really hope that you don't entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you.... And in my opinion, nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much."

Watson, who played Hermione Granger, also spoke out in support of the trans community. "Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren't who they say they are. I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you, and love you for who you are," she wrote in a series of tweets. "I donate to @Mermaids_Gender and @mamacash. If you can, perhaps you'll feel inclined to do the same. Happy #PRIDE2020 Sending love x."

(Watson has not been without controversy lately, either. She was criticized by some for originally just posting black squares on Instagram in early June 2020 in support of Black Lives Matter but failing to provide any information about the cause.)

Grint, who portrayed Ron Wesley, issued a statement in response to Rowling's essay as well.

"I firmly stand with the trans community and echo the sentiments expressed by many of my peers. Trans women are women. Trans men are men," Grint said, according to the Sunday Times on Friday, June 12, 2020. "We should all be entitled to live with love and without judgment."

Also, Bonnie Wright, the actor who played the onscreen sister of Grint's Ron, Ginny Weasley, spoke out via Twitter. "If Harry Potter was a source of love and belonging for you, that love is infinite and there to take without judgment or question. Transwomen are Women. I see and love you, Bonnie x," she wrote.

Redmayne, who appeared in Rowling's Fantastic Beasts franchise and played a transgender woman in The Danish Girl, released a lengthy statement to Variety.

"Respect for transgender people remains a cultural imperative, and over the years I have been trying to constantly educate myself. This is an ongoing process," he said. "As someone who has worked with both JK Rowling and members of the trans community, I wanted to make it absolutely clear where I stand. I disagree with Jo's comments. Trans women are women, trans men are men, and nonbinary identities are valid. I would never want to speak on behalf of the community but I do know that my dear transgender friends and colleagues are tired of this constant questioning of their identities, which all too often results in violence and abuse. They simply want to live their lives peacefully, and it's time to let them do so."

Warner Bros., which produced the Harry Potter films, released this statement about Rowling's comments:

Wait, how is Stephen King involved?

J.K. Rowling reportedly deleted a gushing tweet about Stephen King after the renowned horror writer tweeted in support of trans women.

Here's what apparently went down: King retweeted a message from Rowling's account. "Andrea Dworkin wrote: 'Men often react to women's words-speaking and writing-as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women's words with violence,'" Rowling tweeted on June 28, 2020. "It isn't hateful for women [to] speak about their own experiences, nor do they deserve shaming for doing so."

In response, Rowling sent a now-deleted tweet praising the best-selling author. "I've always revered @StephenKing, but today my love reached-maybe not Annie Wilkes levels-but new heights," she reportedly tweeted, according to Us Weekly. "It's so much easier for men to ignore women's concerns, or to belittle them, but I won't ever forget the men who stood up when they didn't need to. Thank you, Stephen."

However, when a fan asked King to respond to Rowling's transgender statements, the author replied that, "Trans women are women."

According to Hogwarts fans on Twitter as well as to Us Weekly, Rowling deleted her tweet about King shortly after.

Almost one year later, King spoke about what went down, adding that Rowling also blocked the famous author on Twitter after his tweet. "Jo canceled me," the 73-year-old told The Daily Beast in an interview published on May 20, 2021. "She sorta blocked me and all that.

"Here's the thing: She is welcome to her opinion," King added, specifically referencing Rowling's statements on transgender women. "I just felt that her belief was, in my opinion, wrong. We have differing opinions, but that's life."

What about the rant in July 2020?

On July 5, 2020, Rowling went on another social media rant after a Twitter user called her out for liking a tweet that compared hormone therapy to antidepressants.

"I've ignored fake tweets attributed to me and RTed widely. I've ignored porn tweeted at children on a thread about their art. I've ignored death and rape threats. I'm not going to ignore this," Rowling wrote. "When you lie about what I believe about mental health medication and when you misrepresent the views of a trans woman for whom I feel nothing but admiration and solidarity, you cross a line."

She continued, "Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests. Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function."

She once again seemingly called into question the use of hormones. "The long-term health risks of cross-sex hormones have been now been tracked over a lengthy period," she tweeted. "These side-effects are often minimised or denied by trans activists.... None of that may trouble you or disturb your belief in your own righteousness. But if so, I can't pretend I care much about your bad opinion of me."

Her new books aren't helping: Part one.

On September 14, 2020, her book Trouble Blood sparked another round of outrage after an early review began making the rounds. The book reportedly follows a detective on the hunt for a cis male serial killer who dresses as a woman in order to hunt and murder cis women. The Telegraph's review describes it as a "book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress," per Pink News.

Of course, people had thoughts. In fact, #RIPJKRowling quickly began trending. "She's convinced she's a martyr and this is her suicide mission," one user wrote.

Robbie Coltrane defended J.K. Rowling.

The man who played Hagrid was one of the few actors from the Harry Potter-verse to defend Rowling. "I don't think what she said was offensive, really. I don't know why but there's a whole Twitter generation of people who hang around waiting to be offended," he told Radio Times, per the Standard. "They wouldn't have won the war, would they? That's me talking like a grumpy old man, but you just think, Oh, get over yourself. Wise up, stand up straight, and carry on."

He continued, "I don't want to get involved in all of that because of all the hate mail and all that shit, which I don't need at my time of life."

Pete Davidson had the perfect response to the whole thing on Saturday Night Live.

Davidson, who has a Harry Potter tattoo he now seems to regret, joined SNL 's "Weekend Update" on October 10, 2020, to discuss that summer's controversy.

"I long for a few young years ago when the worst things she did were those Fantastic Beasts movies," he joked. "No discrimination there-those films harmed us all equally."

Watch his full remarks, below:

Eddie Izzard comes to Rowling's defense.

The comedian, who announced in December 2020 she's gender-fluid and identifies with she/ her pronouns, said in an interview with The Telegraph, "I don't think J.K. Rowling is transphobic. I think we need to look at the things she has written about in her blog. Women have been through such hell over history. Trans people have been invisible too. I hate the idea we are fighting between ourselves, but it's not going to be sorted with the wave of a wand. I don't have all the answers. If people disagree with me, fine, but why are we going through hell on this?"

A new Harry Potter TV show might be happening-and some fans aren't happy.

In January 2021, rumors started swirling that a Harry Potter TV show was in "early development" at HBO Max. The streaming platform and Warner Bros. shot this down in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, but still fans are chattering. And not all of them are happy about the idea of Rowling profiting off a hypothetical show.

Rowling says she has received death threats.

In response to one person who said, "I wish you a very nice pipebomb in mailbox," she said, "To be fair, when you can't get a woman sacked, arrested or dropped by her publisher, and cancelling her only made her book sales go up, there's really only one place to go."

"Hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me I've realised that this movement poses no risk to women whatsoever."

Dave Chappelle came under fire for defending Rowling.

In Dave Chappelle's Netflix special, which premiered on October 5, 2021, the comedian declared he was a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) like Rowling. "Gender is a fact," he said. "Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. This is a fact." He continued on to make several jokes at trans people's expense, which we will not repeat here. Following the special's release, many Netflix users are calling for its removal from the streaming platform while creators-like Jaclyn Moore, a writer and co-showrunner on Dear White People -declared they will no longer work with the company.

She did not return for the HP films' 20th anniversary special on HBO Max.

Though J.K. Rowling only appeared in Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts through archival footage, she denies being left out by Warner Bros.

In an interview with Graham Norton for Virgin Radio UK in August 2022, she corrected the host when he mentioned she was "excluded" from the special. "I wasn't, actually-I was asked to be on that, and I decided I didn't want to do it," she said, per Vanity Fair. "I thought it was about the films more than the books, you know? Quite rightly, as that is what the anniversary was about, so no one said, 'Don't come.'"

When asked if she's still in touch with any of the "young" Harry Potter actors, she replied, "Yes, I do, some more than others, but that was always the case. Some I knew better than others."

The new books aren't helping: Part two.

In August 2022, Rowling began promoting her new novel, The Ink Black Heart, published under her pen name Robert Galbraith. In the book, which is over a thousand pages long, a YouTube-based cartoonist's work is accused of being racist, transphobic, and ableist; she's then doxxed, threatened with rape and death, and is ultimately stabbed to death in a cemetery. According to one reviewer's take, the book "takes aim" at "social justice warriors."

But the book is not based on Rowling's own controversies...says Rowling. "I should make it really clear after some of the things that have happened the last year that this is not depicting [that]," Rowling said to Graham Norton in an interview. "I had written the book before certain things happened to me online. I said to my husband, 'I think everyone is going to see this as a response to what happened to me,' but it genuinely wasn't. The first draft of the book was finished at the point certain things happened."

Tom Felton dismissed her involvement in the films.

In an interview with The Independent about his memoir, the Draco Malfoy actor said he is "pro-human-rights across the board" and suggested Rowling "wasn't part of the filmmaking process as much as some people might think."

"First of all, I don't know enough about the specifics of what anyone said," he said of Rowling's infamous statements, per Variety. "My dog takes up far too much time for me to go into such matters. I mean, the obvious things to say are that I'm pro-choice, pro-discussion, pro-human-rights across the board, and pro-love. And anything that is not those things, I don't really have much time for."

The actor continued, "It is also a reminder that as much as Jo is the founder of [these] stories, she wasn't part of the filmmaking process as much as some people might think. I think I only recall seeing her once or twice on set."

Helena Bonham Carter came to her defense.

Bonham Carter, who played Bellatrix Lestrange in the Harry Potter films, defended Rowling in a November 2022 interview with The Sunday Times Magazine.

"It's horrendous, a load of bollocks," she said of the Rowling backlash. "I think she has been hounded. It's been taken to the extreme, the judgmentalism of people. She's allowed her opinion, particularly if she's suffered abuse," Bonham Carter continued. "Everybody carries their own history of trauma and forms their opinions from that trauma, and you have to respect where people come from and their pain. You don't all have to agree on everything-that would be insane and boring. She's not meaning it aggressively, she's just saying something out of her own experience."

A trans artist resells Harry Potter books with new covers that omit Rowling's name.

Canadian printmaker and book artist Laur Flom, who is trans, garnered major attention when they began a project of buying secondhand Harry Potter books and replacing the covers with redesigned versions that don't have J.K. Rowling's name. Flom then resells the books for £140, according to Yahoo! News. In a TikTok from February 2022, Flom said, "My aim with this project is to engage critically and give an option to people who do still want to enjoy Harry Potter without supporting J.K. Rowling."

Hogwarts Legacy, a video game based on the franchise, seemingly introduces a trans character.

Per Entertainment Weekly, the hotly anticipated Hogwarts Legacy, a video game set in the Harry Potter universe, introduces a new character, Sirona Ryan, who is seemingly trans. Though Sirona, a barkeep at Three Broomsticks, is not explicitly labeled as transgender, a line of her dialogue is highly suggestive. Referring to her friendship with a goblin, she says, "Hadn't seen him in years when he came in a few months ago. But he recognized me instantly. Which is more than I can say for some of my own classmates. Took them a second to realize I was actually a witch, not a wizard."

Warner Bros. Games has already faced criticism over Hogwarts Legacy, which creates a new revenue stream for Rowling. When asked about the concerns by IGN, game director Alan Tew said, "We know our fans fell in love with the Wizarding World, and we believe they fell in love with it for the right reasons. We know that's a diverse audience. For us, it's making sure that the audience, who always dreamed of having this game, had the opportunity to feel welcomed back. That they have a home here and that it's a good place to tell their story."

Rowling compares the trans rights movement to Death Eaters....

Yeah, you read that right. In episode five of the podcast The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, the author describes the trans rights movement as "dangerous." Here's an excerpt of her statement from March 2023, per Vox:

[S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, "We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die." They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them.

I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I'm afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.

Daniel Radcliffe lays down the gauntlet.

In late March 2023, the Harry Potter star moderated the first episode of Sharing Space, "a new video series from the nonprofit The Trevor Project that features roundtable conversations with LGBTQ youth moderated by adult allies." Per The Hollywood Reporter, Radcliffe spoke to six transgender and nonbinary youth for the premiere episode, which is set to air on The Trevor Project's YouTube page on March 31, the Transgender Day of Visibility.

"We listen to so many people talk about trans youth and hear them talked about so often in the news, but very rarely do we actually hear from these youth directly," Radcliffe said in a statement. "It was an absolute privilege to get to meet and listen to this incredible group of young people. At the end of the day, if you're going to talk about trans kids, it might be useful to actually listen to trans kids."

Fans on Twitter and TikTok widely praise Radcliffe for his allyship in the wake of Rowling's consistent transphobia.

She's developing a Harry Potter TV series with HBO Max.

In April, news broke via Bloomberg that HBO Max was reportedly in talks with Rowling to produce a multiseason TV series wherein each of the seven Harry Potter books would have its own season. Despite her offensive, transphobic remarks, Rowling would be directly involved in the series to keep the storyline faithful to her books. However, the outlet noted that she would not hold a major production role.

David Zaslav, the CEO of HBO parent company Warner Bros Discovery, "has met multiple times with Rowling and has spoken up in support of the author" amid her ongoing controversies, per Deadline.

It was then confirmed by Variety that a series is in the works at Max, the combined streaming home of HBO Max and Discovery+ due to launch in the spring. The series will feature an entirely new cast and Rowling as an executive producer. "Max's commitment to preserving the integrity of my books is important to me, and I'm looking forward to being part of this new adaptation, which will allow for a degree of depth and detail only afforded by a long-form television series," said the author.

ContraPoints calls Rowling a "useful idiot" for the patriarchy.

Natalie Wynn, a popular trans YouTuber and political commentator who posts under the username ContraPoints, started trending on Twitter on April 17, when she dropped her explanation of why there is no "witch hunt" against Rowling. It's worth taking the time to watch Wynn's two-hour analysis in full, which she concludes with two important points. The first: "Is the backlash against J.K. Rowling a witch hunt? Unequivocally no," Wynn says.

But she also adds that Rowling is still "not the final boss of transphobia." Wynn explains, "A movement can't get along without a devil. And across the whole political spectrum, there's a misogynistic tendency to choose a female devil. Whether it's Anita Bryant, Hillary Clinton, Marie Antoinette, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or J.K. Rowling." The real threat to trans people, Wynn says, is the Republican party. Rowling and other TERFs are "useful idiots who put a concerned female face on the patriarchal violence against trans people that will ultimately be enacted by right-wing men."

Rowling mocks TV show boycotters.

With news of the HBO Max reboot, all eyes are on J.K. Rowling-and she keeps giving her critics something to talk about. The author responded to fans' calls to boycott the show on Twitter on April 21: "Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share," she wrote. "Activists in my mentions are trying to organize yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show." The sarcasm speaks volumes.

To add insult to injury, she remarked that she would stock up on champagne to celebrate, then admitted in the replies that she doesn't even really like champagne.

Professor Slughorn, played by Jim Broadbent, weighs in.

The original cast members are divided in their response to Rowling's TERF rhetoric. Jim Broadbent, who played Professor Slughorn, revealed where he stands in an April 23 interview with The Telegraph.

"It's really sad," the actor said. "I think J.K. Rowling is amazing. I haven't had to confront [the criticism] myself, but I would support her in that, I think, if it came to it." Broadbent is among Rowling's supporters, who include Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter.

Rowling insists she'd take prison time rather than correctly use a trans person's pronouns.

Yes, you read that correctly. Per Deadline, the author appeared to respond to an October 14 report in the Daily Mail which suggested that Britain's Labour movement is working to make gender identity attacks criminal offenses. Such offenses, critics insisted in the report, would carry a two-year sentence.

"I'll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex," Rowling wrote on X (formerly Twitter). Her comment was in response to a follower who said she could receive jail time for her views. "Bring on the court case, I say," she added. "It'll be more fun than I've ever had on a red carpet."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
J.K. Rowling Says She'd 'Happily' Take Prison Time Rather Than Use a Trans Person's Correct Pronouns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling is under fire after posting a series of controversial tweets about the transgender community.