As far as I know Hermione can only get house-elves to seek freedom by tricking them. That seems to confirm the wizard view stereotype.

That seems to confirm the wizard view stereotype.

True, it's not a perfect example. But she's willing to take the preconceptions and try to shake the truth out of them. She's just not willing to see the unwelcome results of her shaking.

Dumbledore seems to want fair treatment; not the same thing as denying the truth behind many of the stereotypes - just that the species characteristic does not mean the various species are not valuable with a right to their own viewpoint. Sort of a 19th liberal viewpoint.

Or using actual animal species as your basis for your non-human species. Like the difference in personality between a retriever and a herder. If I say retrievers are all about their toys and herders are all about controlling others, it isn't a stereotype--it's a basic trait of their p species.

If I say retrievers are all about their toys and herders are all about controlling others, it isn't a stereotype--it's a basic trait of their p species.

But it's like Star Trek or D&D or whatever--humans get to be generalists; bad or good is to be determined, but for other species it's in the genes.

Which makes a diversity lesson more like respecting others despite their inherent flaws (which you might as well go and prejudge), and not as useful a parallel as it might otherwise be.

Right. I'm not saying that the universe of the book is badly constructed. Plot, and a certain kind of world building are Rowlings skills. (I actually have never found her world building convincing when I think about it. But her worlds feel real. ) But fictional intelligent species don't have to differ from one another in the ways she has them. And it makes it very easy to read as analogies for racial and cultural stereotypes. Now I don't think an author of fiction is obliged to teach didactic lessons; or even neccesarily avoid teaching the wrong ones. But I think it puts the gay Dumbledore thing in context. If she intended the series to put forth a pro-diversity message to her readers (and I have no reason to think she did) she failed miserably.

The Wizard world has stereotypes, they're just different stereotypes than the real-world ones. (Well, sometimes. No one seems to care at all about race, but the Irish and French and Bulgarian wizards that we saw were all fairly stereotypically Irish and French and Eastern European.)

Yeah, I don't think of it as a lesson in tolerance that didn't go far enough. Because I don't think of it as a lesson in tolerance.

I actually have never found her world building convincing when I think about it. But her worlds feel real.

How do you do that math? I mean, if it feels real, how is it not convincing?

I didn't really read it that way. I saw the Mudblood/Pureblood/Blood Traitor thing as clearly analogous to racial and ethnic issues, but not the different species. Because they are, well, different species. (I think the only part-wizard part-other we ever met was Fleur, and her family. And veelas in mythology were originally human anyway.) (Oh. Just remembered Hagrid and Madam Olympique. Hmm.)

And it also depends on how you're defining "intelligent species," I think. Just the ability to talk?

And it also depends on how you're defining "intelligent species," I think. Just the ability to talk?

At some point they actually list them, don't they? Umbridge maybe? The "non human magical creatures" act? They're not subject to certain rules or whatever?