FACT CHECK
https://twitter.com/CherryxGarcia/status/1578477117007765506
https://twitter.com/CherryxGarcia/status/1578477122485878784
https://twitter.com/CherryxGarcia/status/1578477130018537473

FUCK JOANNE
spoiler (click to show/hide)
1. Slavery is okay. The one character who tries to abolish slavery is mocked for doing so.
This misreading is so bad I'm not even going to do every point. Like what the fuck?

I guess if you're writing a fictional character hoping to
abolish slavery they can't ever be mocked or challenged in any way.
To Kill a Mockingbird? CENTRIST GARBAGE
2. Women fall into 3 categories: angel in the house, femme fatale or spinster.
Not true, and also far better than most pop fiction.

7. Motherhood being held as a woman's ultimate goal
It was never a goal for any of the three main characters whatsoever... Ron and Hermione didn't even get together until the last book. A flashback shows them all with kids but that includes Harry and Ron too.
I'm really struggling to think of a single character in HP whose motivation was "gotta get married!" Maybe that one-off weirdo chick who was really into Ron in Book 6? But she was just into Ron, not marriage afaik.

McGonnagal? Widowed with no kids.
Molly Weasley? Already married with kids at the start, and is rewarded for her motherhood with the death of one of her sons.
Bellatrix? Retconned into wanting a Voldy baby in what I consider the non-canon Cursed Child, but literally nothing in the books. She fucking hates kids in the books.
Ginny? Wants to get with Harry, never mentioned wanting kids.
Narcissa? Arguably
worse off because she has to constantly protect Draco from her husband and Voldemort.
Luna? Never heard her mention wanting kids, she honestly seems asexual for most of the books.
Nagini? OH YEAH! How could I forget all her little snake-babies? Oh wait.
8. Anti semitic characateurs
Possibly a valid point that history won't be kind to, but Goblin-Bankers were not invented whole cloth by JK either.
9. Offensive HIV allegory in the form of Fenrir Greyback

10. Not making dumbledore explicitly gay in CoG and adding a single line in SoD that can be cut
So if DD was gay in the HP main series JK would be totally cool with everyone on the Left?

My thinking at the time (post-Book 7 "DD is gay") was that I kinda agree with Rowling. DD's sexuality would have been a distraction from the story and focal characters, and it also would have gotten HP re-banned in a ton of states/schools/etc. The first three books already had to deal with that with the "Harry Potter is satanic witchcraft!" crowd. Dumbledore/Harry would be "a textbook case of grooming!" if DD was openly gay to the main cast, and
this anti-grooming rhetoric is being used to strip people of their rights to this day.Would it be better if she had said nothing and Dumbledore had "stayed" straight? Even post-hoc inclusivity is still inclusivity.
Sure, give more ammo to the ignorant late-90s/early-00s anti-Potter Christians. I mean, kids were actually reading instead of playing games or watching movies, which we all ostensibly want more of. But nah, fuck that I guess.
The Secrets of Dumbledore thing is more a product of Hollywood machinery. I have to imagine Rowling was the only one on the production team pushing for that element, because it's not marketable and it would have to be cut for China regardless.
I could go on... the older I've got, the more I realise that HP is just centrist garbage.
Centrist becoming the new "absolute insult" is fucking hilarious to me.

It’s fiction! And very good fiction btw.
You must have been a fan of Mein Kampf too
Derpety derpity do.

Autobiographies are
non-fiction. I assume this person did not even finish high school. I'm so glad Twitter just lets them spew their garbage at everyone with no consequences (and in fact, with lots of rewarding dopamine).