Some privileged whataboutism.

One of my friends sometimes sends me links to articles, and then we discuss them. At this point let me note this friend is a trans woman who has been living undetected for decades. A big fan of the Harry Potter books, she found herself at a loss, no longer able to enjoy the stories for what they were. Accordingly, she had sent me a link to Daniel Radcliffe’s response to those who were taken aback and/or pained by J.K. Rowling’s continuing transphobia. Here is my friend’s response to the article (I will not quote the article, which is easily found):

“I thought that it was just so eloquent and had the right touch of humility. Yet all the while he makes it clear that an injustice has been done and that his moral compass along with the strength and courage of his convictions renders him unable to pass by when he bears witness to an injustice. Furthermore, his piece lacks the moral indignation that we often see when a celebrity ‘stands up’ for a cause — the same moral indignation which, perhaps makes the author of said words feel better (about themselves), but invariably weakens their message. Daniel Radcliffe is also consistent in his support for LGBT issues, as opposed to first speaking up when it’s fashionable.”

Here is my response:

“I think it’s excellent, also. It is an interesting question that we may have discussed before. How should we feel about a favorite author or composer or artist when we find out that they were less than ideal as people? And they were all less-than-ideal as far as I can see. I would…