Oh, nice. Revisionism and cherry picking a few quotes to try to make it seem like JK is actually supportive of trans people, trans rights, and only has a few "legitimate" concerns we should all...
Oh, nice. Revisionism and cherry picking a few quotes to try to make it seem like JK is actually supportive of trans people, trans rights, and only has a few "legitimate" concerns we should all take seriously. Fun. /s
I'm so thoroughly exhausted by this subject, so I will simply point everyone towards someone who is a far better, far more compassionate, and far smarter person than myself. If you want a breakdown on why JK is rightly considered a transphobe, here's a solid debunking of all the minsinformation being spread by JK in her old blog post, the same one that this NYT author is directly quoting from and referencing.
I know it's incredibly long, but please please please read it before taking this NYT author's words about JK's "concerns" at face value. I'm begging you.
p.s. Slate also published a response to this NYT op-ed, which adds some interesting context to the story of its publication, includes more debunking, and also has this banger of a quote.
The issue, here, is the definition of transphobia, which Paul is whittling and contorting to her own ideological ends. If transphobia does not apply to someone who would exile trans women in need from shelters and crisis centers that could support them; who believes that there are simply too many transgender children these days, and who would consign trans youth to distress and dysphoria rather than offering treatment that will allow them to pursue safer, happier lives; who believes a handful of vocal detransitioners to be more trustworthy than actual transgender people, such that public policy and social structures should be built according to the notion that every trans person is a detransitioner-in-waiting; who considers trans women inherently deceptive, conniving, and dangerous; and who has built her entire public political persona around casting suspicion on transgender people and the argument that their needs are mutually exclusive to those of cis women and girls—to whom, exactly, should it apply?
Paul wants it to apply only to those who would commit anti-trans violence and to the extreme right-wing legislators who are trying to outlaw transgender health care. (Banning trans health care for adults is transphobic; banning it for teens and making it extremely difficult, mentally taxing, and time-consuming to obtain for adults is reasonable—see the distinction?)
But whether transphobia is nakedly hateful or cloaked in concern and caveats, if it is levied in support of efforts to keep transgender people pathologized, mistrusted, and marginalized, it is a loathsome pursuit that does not deserve our sympathetic consideration.
As /u/cfabbro mentioned, those few quotes at the beginning are misleading at best. Even taken at face value their sincerity is dubious (seriously, "trans-identified people"?) This piece feels...
As /u/cfabbro mentioned, those few quotes at the beginning are misleading at best. Even taken at face value their sincerity is dubious (seriously, "trans-identified people"?)
This piece feels especially duplicitous given that Rowling wrote an entire essay about how transgender women aren't real women. And it's not like the NYT author didn't know about the essay -- most of the quotes were actually pulled from it!
I mean, consider them:
Trans people need and deserve protection.
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others but are vulnerable.
I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
Now consider the actual context (bold for quotes, italics for emphasis):
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
In literally the following paragraph those quotes were pulled from, Rowling misgenders a hypothetical trans person before implying that they'll assault women in bathrooms. It's the same dumb talking point we've been hearing from alt-right figures like Tucker Carlson for years.
Archive.org version for those not subscribed to NYT This paints a more nuanced picture of Rowling's views than I had before. I'm still not convinced she's a saint, but it is a good reminder that...
This paints a more nuanced picture of Rowling's views than I had before. I'm still not convinced she's a saint, but it is a good reminder that the hot takes and angry rants that spread like wildfire on social media are usually more interested in making people angry than fostering meaningful discussion or spreading useful information.
It wasn't as hard-hitting a piece as I was expecting from the New York Times, but it does add some nuance to the conversation which is desperately needed. I don't surf Twitter, or these other...
It wasn't as hard-hitting a piece as I was expecting from the New York Times, but it does add some nuance to the conversation which is desperately needed.
I don't surf Twitter, or these other sites where these cultural battles are often fought, but I'm aware of it by proxy. I suspect there's some truth to both sides. Social media does frequently distort the truth, and bend comments in a way that the author did not intend. However, I don't think there's any question that JK does often question the legitimacy of transgenderism, and particularly transwomen. I think those views can be particularly hurtful, and can be damaging when they are used as ammunition or seen as endorsement by transphobes. If that's not transphobic, then it's at least transphobe-ish.
Mostly I think she needs to be aware of her power when she speaks on these issues, and maybe move past the more traditional women's rights issues that she has championed for in the past, which she now seems to believe are being challenged by transwomen. Though personally I'd prefer if she would just step away from social media altogether, as I don't think she's acting as a positive force in the world anymore.
Social media has this awful amplifying effect. Small comments become large declarations, controversy attracts attention, and more clicks mean more exposure. Those that fall into this cycle seem to be extremized in the end, as we've seen with folks like Notch. Rather than social pressure being corrective, this form of unending online anonymity seems to create a negative feedback loop that pushes people into the very thing that we were trying to argue against.
That doesn't mean that we should excuse somebody for their comments online, but perhaps it does mean that we should be conscious of feeding the beast, if we don't want it to keep growing.
As a side note, I became more interested in this topic due to the recent release of Hogwarts Legacy (also mentioned in this article). I had a very negative interaction on this site with somebody telling me "nobody gives a fuck about you", and it really soured me on the whole thing for a while. But the game has actually been so warm, so positive and trans-inclusive that it's actually turned me around again.
At this point, my feeling is this. JK for a time helped instill positive values with her writing. Harry Potter has many lessons about friendship and bravery that will resonate for many. For that reason I'm not against pulling from her earlier work, or letting others build on top of it as Hogwarts Legacy does. However her current comments, whether out of malice or ignorance, now seem to be doing harm, and I think it's time to change the channel.
Oh, nice. Revisionism and cherry picking a few quotes to try to make it seem like JK is actually supportive of trans people, trans rights, and only has a few "legitimate" concerns we should all take seriously. Fun. /s
I'm so thoroughly exhausted by this subject, so I will simply point everyone towards someone who is a far better, far more compassionate, and far smarter person than myself. If you want a breakdown on why JK is rightly considered a transphobe, here's a solid debunking of all the minsinformation being spread by JK in her old blog post, the same one that this NYT author is directly quoting from and referencing.
https://eev.ee/blog/2020/06/11/rowling-is-dangerously-wrong/
I know it's incredibly long, but please please please read it before taking this NYT author's words about JK's "concerns" at face value. I'm begging you.
p.s. Slate also published a response to this NYT op-ed, which adds some interesting context to the story of its publication, includes more debunking, and also has this banger of a quote.
As /u/cfabbro mentioned, those few quotes at the beginning are misleading at best. Even taken at face value their sincerity is dubious (seriously, "trans-identified people"?)
This piece feels especially duplicitous given that Rowling wrote an entire essay about how transgender women aren't real women. And it's not like the NYT author didn't know about the essay -- most of the quotes were actually pulled from it!
I mean, consider them:
Now consider the actual context (bold for quotes, italics for emphasis):
In literally the following paragraph those quotes were pulled from, Rowling misgenders a hypothetical trans person before implying that they'll assault women in bathrooms. It's the same dumb talking point we've been hearing from alt-right figures like Tucker Carlson for years.
Archive.org version for those not subscribed to NYT
This paints a more nuanced picture of Rowling's views than I had before. I'm still not convinced she's a saint, but it is a good reminder that the hot takes and angry rants that spread like wildfire on social media are usually more interested in making people angry than fostering meaningful discussion or spreading useful information.
It wasn't as hard-hitting a piece as I was expecting from the New York Times, but it does add some nuance to the conversation which is desperately needed.
I don't surf Twitter, or these other sites where these cultural battles are often fought, but I'm aware of it by proxy. I suspect there's some truth to both sides. Social media does frequently distort the truth, and bend comments in a way that the author did not intend. However, I don't think there's any question that JK does often question the legitimacy of transgenderism, and particularly transwomen. I think those views can be particularly hurtful, and can be damaging when they are used as ammunition or seen as endorsement by transphobes. If that's not transphobic, then it's at least transphobe-ish.
Mostly I think she needs to be aware of her power when she speaks on these issues, and maybe move past the more traditional women's rights issues that she has championed for in the past, which she now seems to believe are being challenged by transwomen. Though personally I'd prefer if she would just step away from social media altogether, as I don't think she's acting as a positive force in the world anymore.
Social media has this awful amplifying effect. Small comments become large declarations, controversy attracts attention, and more clicks mean more exposure. Those that fall into this cycle seem to be extremized in the end, as we've seen with folks like Notch. Rather than social pressure being corrective, this form of unending online anonymity seems to create a negative feedback loop that pushes people into the very thing that we were trying to argue against.
That doesn't mean that we should excuse somebody for their comments online, but perhaps it does mean that we should be conscious of feeding the beast, if we don't want it to keep growing.
As a side note, I became more interested in this topic due to the recent release of Hogwarts Legacy (also mentioned in this article). I had a very negative interaction on this site with somebody telling me "nobody gives a fuck about you", and it really soured me on the whole thing for a while. But the game has actually been so warm, so positive and trans-inclusive that it's actually turned me around again.
At this point, my feeling is this. JK for a time helped instill positive values with her writing. Harry Potter has many lessons about friendship and bravery that will resonate for many. For that reason I'm not against pulling from her earlier work, or letting others build on top of it as Hogwarts Legacy does. However her current comments, whether out of malice or ignorance, now seem to be doing harm, and I think it's time to change the channel.