Someone Explain to John Lithgow What JK Rowling Does With Her Money

People have to work. I understand that. Working actors need jobs to stay employed, and jobs in that industry are not always easy to come by, regardless of one’s status or “importance.” Someone can light the box office on fire with a successful performance and still find themselves unemployed a year later, and those are the more successful actors. That’s not even mentioning the folks whose names you don’t know. It’s show business, and dammit, business can be tough.

I also understand people working with others whose politics they disagree with. It’s not great, but to be clear, issues that are not political (human beings being allowed certain inalienable rights) are forced into the conversation regardless. Many people would love to continue living without bothering anyone, as they have done. Instead, they are made the targets of horrendous attacks for simply being who they are. It is wrong, and something JK Rowling is one hundred percent guilty of.

It would take too long to get into Rowling’s history of hateful bigotry. It’s easier to look at a recent UK Supreme Court Ruling that decided the words “women” and “sex” in the U.K.’s Equality Act refer to biological women and biological sex. Rowling later celebrated the ruling on a yacht with a cigar like a f***ing comic book villain. It was a “loser” move (so sayeth Pedro Pascal), and gets worse when you look at the details. Rowling had donated £70,000 to For Scotland Women, who brought the initial lawsuit to the court.

To be clear: JK Rowling gave money to an anti-trans group. That group then complained to the UK Supreme Court. The court sided in their favor. Rowling celebrated, saying she “loves it when a plan comes together” because nothing she does (or has done) is original. I’m reiterating that point because, while the pieces should fit together easily for anyone, John Lithgow can’t seem to see the whole picture (or he does and doesn’t care/is lying).

Lithgow was cast as Dumbledore in the upcoming Harry Potter streaming adaptation, which is fraught for a host of reasons. Chief among them is that Max, who is producing the show, has made it clear that JK will be heavily involved (they couldn’t get enough of her work on those Fantastic Beasts movies, I guess). She’s involved, and she will make money, and she will then use that money to hurt people. Despite “a very good friend who is the mother of a trans child” sending an open letter to Lithgow asking him not to participate in the show, the World According to Garp star isn’t budging. Even worse, he’s acting like the smoke has no fire.

“I thought, ‘Why is this a factor at all?’ I wonder how J.K. Rowling has absorbed it,” Lithgow noted to The Times of London, which often has anti-trans leanings. “I suppose at a certain point I’ll meet her, and I’m curious to talk to her.” Why wouldn’t you want to talk to the person who created the property you’re boarding about the views they have? Maybe because you don’t have to look far to find them. Rowling is not shy about her hatred, and acting like he’s going to have some enlightening conversation with her is a level of naivety Bill Maher would tip his stupid sunglasses at.

Lithgow responded, “Oh, heavens no,” when asked if the backlash would make him reconsider the role. Not great. But, what’s worse is he then goes on to compare working for JK Rowling, who is alive and using her money for nefarious purposes, to playing anti-simetic author Roald Dahl, who is very much dead and likely to stay that way (this year is bad, bigots rising from the dead isn’t off the table). “No one complained when I agreed to play Dahl, but I’ve received so many messages about J.K. Rowling,” he noted. “Isn’t that odd?”

No, John, it’s not odd. I know Roald Dahl’s estate is still keeping a watchful eye on his legacy, but they aren’t openly touting the success of rulings meant to make it harder for Jewish people to exist. There is a clear difference here, and either Lithgow doesn’t see it or doesn’t want to.