Not You, John Lithgow

Defending J.K. Rowling? Not. On. My. Watch.

“It’s just appalling. It sickens me. I woke up this morning, I was so in a rage about what they are doing.”

That was Joy Behar in a now-memorialized clip from The View. She was, of course, talking about the Tr*mp administration, but it’s pretty easily cut and pasted to just about any situation these days, the “they” so expansive as to who to apply it to. It’s especially applicable to the relentless attacks on trans people — not just their dignity, not just their humanity, but even their right to exist. The attacks have only grown more dogged, more abhorrent and more Machiavellian “thanks” to the political weaponization of a community whose only “crime” is existing. The most recent strike came on April 16, in a landmark ruling from the United Kingdom’s highest court where they unanimously ruled that the legal definition of “woman” excludes trans women.

When I saw actor John Lithgow taking heat online for his casting in HBO‘s forthcoming Harry Potter serialized adaptation, I thought, “Look, you can’t hate the man for cashing a check.” And, “He’s an elder; no way he’s been fully briefed on why this seemingly ace-in-the-hole career movie is potentially riddled with hot water.” But then came a recent interview with The Times, in which Lithgow defended not only his decision to appear in the project, but even appeared to empathize with (as Pedro Pascal dubbed her) heinous loser J.K. Rowling over how she must be feeling about the backlash to the project. It’s a bummer of a response to a bummer of a project in a franchise forever tarnished, and in many senses imprisoned, by its own creator.