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?

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

I would think that it should be the ability to communicate and work together for a common goal.

I would think that it should be the ability to communicate and work together for a common goal.

Hmm. By that definition, though, I think the gargoyles would qualify.

Looks like the Ministry divides the magical creatures into Beasts, Beings, and Spirits. Specifically mentioned as Beasts are centuars, hippogriffs, dragons, and werewolves. Specifically mentioned as beings are house elves, goblines, and werewolves. (At the Ministry, the Werewolf Registry and the Werewolf Capture Unit are in the Beast division, but the Werewolf Support Services are in the Being division.)

Hmm. By that definition, though, I think the gargoyles would qualify.

By that definition, mole rats qualify.