Matt Berry played Douglas Reynholm who was the central character in that controversial transphobic IT crowd episode. Despite that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt because it was the 2000s and the topic of trans rights was virtually non-existent in mainstream discourse. It was also before Graham Linehan outed himself as a raging bigot. I also absolutely love that show in general.

I don't know if Matt has ever talked about his views on trans people, but him appearing on this is not a good sign, and very disappointing for me as someone who is a fan of his work.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 27 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The writer of the IT crowd (and black books 😭) is a massive supporter of jk, a well known transphobe, and generally consider a lunatic. It's a shame those shows are hilarious.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 42 points 3 days ago

Huh, from Wikipedia:

Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism after an episode of The IT Crowd was criticised as transphobic. He argues that transgender activism endangers women and has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics. Linehan says his views have "consumed his life", lost him work, and ended his marriage.[3]

Not just a thoughtless transphobic episode but actually a campaign of hate that consumes his life.

[–] cheers_queers@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

The Know Rogan Experience pod broke down Linehan's episode of Joe Rogan if you want to hear his shitty views without directly supporting Joe' content

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

(and black books 😭)

The premise of the series and the characters were all created by Dylan Moran. Linehan was just a co-writer.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh i didnt know that! I definitely feel linehan's influence in the writing for black books though. It feels similar to father ted and IT crowd, you know?

[–] groucho@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago

He (Linehan) only wrote for the first season, too. They parted ways after that.

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 22 points 3 days ago

Yeah, Berry was the biggest disappointment for me, but I guess it kind of fits his history.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 days ago

i'm super sad dermot morgan is gone but i'm also glad there's no way he could possibly depress me by caming out in support of graham.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 6 points 3 days ago

Berry doesn’t like talking about it on the record. He has sometimes talked about how badly he feels about it to interviewers off the record.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 35 points 3 days ago

Well, several people I didnt expect to be huge pieces of shit are, in fact, huge pieces of shit.

I have to be candid, I wasn't exactly expecting a lot to start with here. They just went much deeper in shit than I was expecting.

[–] abc@feddit.uk 33 points 3 days ago

Even if you take the morals/integrity out of it, I’d be so embarrassed to admit to even a trivial association with HP these days. God forbid 🥴

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 27 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Hmm the British don't seem to care much about plight of trans folks.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 26 points 3 days ago

Transphobia is rife in the UK across the whole political spectrum. Transphobia is pretty standard for the right, but the centrist Labour government and even the fucking communist parties are transphobic here.

Thankfully there are still some pushing back against this backwards thinking, like the Green party who are unapologetically pro-LGBTQ+ under the new leadership.

[–] trashcroissant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There has to be more of a reason that all the anti-trans legislation have gone throughover there (I mean, aside from JK Rowling's massive lobbying). Laws might not represent all of the people all the time, but they certainly represent a part of a population.

[+] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not so much anti-trans legislation as that the pro-trans legislation was found to be poorly drafted and without legal basis so was repealed.

[–] DoktorRau@feddit.org 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What part of it was „poorly drafted“?

The only thing that’s poorly drafted are the demands of „For Women Scotland“.

The ruling allows for trans people to be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services in some situations.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The Equality Act 2010 used the terms “Woman” (without qualification) and “sex”. Both terms are established in law to refer to biological status, and as the EA 2010 didn’t make provision to change those definitions, then the clause covering women had no legal basis to protect trans people (who were also covered in a seperate clause).

So it seems there was a gulf between the intention of those drafting the law and their legal skill. Certainly in the Scottish Government who seem to have seen the law they wanted to see rathet than the law that was written.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 days ago

ruth wilson hurts so bad but putting jk rowlings hate aside, why would you even take a harry potter role in 2025 it's so dated (and i'm speaking as someone who was a complete ride or die harry potter obsessed kid).

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

not sure most cis people are aware of the association between JK Rowling, Harry Potter, and her transphobia... maybe the cast and crew are aware and choosing a paycheck over association with a known transphobe, but I don't think it's as guaranteed as it may seem to us

[–] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I struggle to believe that. Every single one of these have an agent who's job it is to know and inform their client if a role is problematic.

Hell, I think on a personal level they'd be aware also as it has very much become her personality.

[–] Quexotic@beehaw.org 19 points 3 days ago

Agreed. She's incredibly outspoken about this. To take this job is to either be so desperate for money that you can't afford not to (sorta hard to believe with the stars), to just not care, or to be actively in agreement with Rowling's views. The latter two being inexcusable, and the first still being seriously dubious.

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cishet, well aware, and definitely told anyone of my cishet friends who were interested in say the Harry Potter game.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that's great, thank you - I think it's important to spread the word!

I do feel like the cis people I know who are aware of the JK Rowling connection to transphobia are mostly either media industry insiders who keep up with the current news, or LGBT+ folks or allies who are generally paying attention to politics and culture.

That said, the response to Rowling's transphobia has often been rather muted, most people I talk to or observe seem to not feel it rises to the level of boycott or abandoning Harry Potter - and there has even been surprise at how serious the extent of Rowling's transphobia is. I remember when Hank Green got cancer and he watched ContraPoints' video on the topic, he and his nurse who was caring for him as he watched the video expressed surprise at how bad it was, etc.

What is your experience with your cis friends - are they usually aware, and what is their reaction?

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Not always as great as I want it to be. A lot of these comments were from years ago and the people I've talked to about it most recently do agree, but I remember some saying stuff like she doesn't get that much of the money or some other dismissive argument, some just avoiding the subject, and some agreeing. This was before she was really public about using her funds to actively hurt trans people like the donations she's made since, so it was harder to make arguments that buying her stuff still hurt people, though I did try.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

sometimes i think that tom cruise ruined simon pegg

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nah. I remember some of his interactions on Twitter around the time Paul was released. He was a twat back then too

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 4 points 3 days ago

that gave me a chuckle.

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Those top four are BRUTAL.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

because its shitty they took the role but also because they're so miscast for the roles it's laughable

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago

Also, "Leo Woodall" apparently duplicated.