What did JK Rowling do wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

You made a claim about what is on her Twitter, I'd like you to link to what you're talking about, as this subject is so fraught that I'd like to see what people are actually considering offensive.

The Spectator article starts off by saying:


"Gender ideology" is a buzzword common both among "anti-gender" right wingers and among so-called "gender-critical" feminists.

As far as I can tell, the term "gender ideology" was coined by conservative Catholics to refer to challenges to traditional gender roles. It was later picked up by "gender-critical" feminists to refer to the very idea of gender identity, as distinct from biological sex.

It's rather odd that conservative Catholics and some feminists, who are on opposite sides of most social issues, would use the same buzzword to refer to beliefs and values they don't like. As far as I can tell, conservative Catholics and "gender-critical" feminists have only two things in common: being anti-trans and associating trans people with whatever they mean by "gender ideology."

For some background, see:

- “Gender Ideology” Is a Fiction That Could Do Real Harm by Michelle Gallo, Open Society Foundations, August 29, 2017.
- Breaking the Buzzword: Fighting the “Gender Ideology” Myth by
Graeme Reid, Human Rights Watch, 2018.
- Gender Ideology: tracking its origins and meanings in current gender politics by Sonia Corrêa, 2017, Genderings, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Naturally, therefore, bashing "gender ideology" isn't a good way to make oneself welcome in the LGBTQ+ community, or at a Pride march.

The lesbian group Get The L Out UK alleges that there is "pressure on same-sex attracted women to date trans women." I don't know to what extent such pressure exists.

To whatever extent it does exist, it may indeed need to addressed publicly within the LGBTQ+ community. But it should be addressed with an attitude of mutual respect between cis lesbians and transwomen, NOT in the context of a generally hostile diatribe against "gender ideology."

Back to the Spectator article:


No, trans activism does not erase lesbians. At the very least, trans activism does not intrinsically erase lesbians, although there may exist some trans activists with anti-lesbian attitudes.

These women are disingenuously claiming to be discriminated against (within the LGBTQ+ community) solely for being lesbians with a personal dislike of any and all sexual activity involving a penis, rather than for the generally anti-trans attitudes that are implied by brandishing hot-button buzzwords like "gender ideology," with its long anti-trans (AND anti-LGBTQ+ more generally) history.

The Spectator article then says:


Yes, but that's a completely different set of issues from what's going on now.

See this Twitter thread for assorted critiques of one of JK Rowlings' claims.

I'm imagining someone going back to 2014 and telling Dox that in 2022 he'll be allied with Julie Bindel, a literal man-hating feminist...

The big issue with the article is Bindel's attempt to conflate "Get The L Out", an explicitly transphobic group, with lesbians as a whole. Most lesbians aren't transphobic, and are happily taking part at Pride. Bit strange to say that you don't want to take part in Pride, show up anyway with insulting placards, and then complain when you're asked to leave. It would be like showing up at the local church, shouting at the preacher every time they say something that implies the existence of God, and then when you're asked to leave, claiming that you are a victim of racism.

I thought you knew that guilt by association is a terrible argument that doesn't work on me, but then trans issues seem to scramble a lot of brains.

I didn't see his remark about you being "allied with Julie Bindel" as an actual argument, just an ironic comment. You ignored his actual arguments, which were in the paragraph you didn't quote.

Quite.

That said, I was also making the point that basically everything Bindel writes has to be interpreted through a lens of her really hating men. You can make similar comments about many prominent opinion writers, of course. But Bindel’s “Theory of Everything” is men who are violent against women. This is a pervasive issue in society, sure, but Bindel has brought it into arguments against vegetarianism, human rights law, bisexuality, and of course trans people (first of many here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ ... r.weekend7)

This is Bindel’s “angle”: she views trans men as gender traitors, trans women as invaders playing dress up, and all of them as reinforcements of the heteropatriarchy. She doesn’t provide level-headed commentary because she takes a very strong ideological line.

On Twitter recently, JK Rowling seems to be doing whatever she can to stir up hostility between trans people, on the one hand, and cis lesbians and gay men, on the other hand.

It seems a bunch of alleged "lesbian and gay rights" groups have sprung up lately that are devoted primarily to dissing trans people. Apparently there have also been been some episodes where some trans activists have, unfortunately, responded with misogynistic signs (like "TERFs can suck my huge trans cock") or even with physical violence, which the anti-trans groups are using as an excuse to be even more anti-trans.

To make matters even weirder, some of these anti-trans alleged "lesbian and gay rights" groups appear to be allied with groups sufficiently right wing to attract attention from Antifa groups in defense of the trans activists.

Lately, JK Rowling has retweeted quite a bit of stuff from the alleged lesbian and gay rights activists complaining about trans activists, and sometimes also complaining about Antifa (referred to as the "Be Kind brigade").

Someone recently called my attention to the article Autistic, Trans, and Betrayed By J.K. Rowling by Kris Guin, Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, June 11, 2020. It contains a link to this Twitter thread by Andrew James Carter, commenting on various statements by JK Rowling back in 2020.

All of those, and also this line




Pretty big dis on trans peeps in general.

Also depending on who you speak to, us non-binary people fall under trans. And while some of us are attracted to women, pushing for lesbians to like someone who although may not be macho, or whatever just sounds insane.

I have enough reasons to doubt my sanity without going there.

Though I guess post-op trans women who didn't reveal that status earlier enough for a lesbian partner to realise they didn't want to go further could lead to lesbian dysphoria?

Anyone curious about the tension between lesbians and parts of the trans community should look into the cotton ceiling debate, it should prove illuminating.

...and provide a great deal of schadenfreude for some.

Everyone here has probably had that conversation to death.

You’re pointing at two groups of extremists - one group who feel like they’re entitled to have people feel attracted to them, and another group who are outraged that other people have the gall to be attracted to them.

In the real world, the vast majority of lesbians do not experience that sort of tension, and the vast majority of trans lesbians don’t expect every lesbian to be personally attracted to them. In fact, shock horror, queer people tend to be less queerphobic.

I was recently at a meeting of my workplace’s LGBT group. One man stood up and said he was concerned about how “the trans issue” is “impacting women, particularly lesbians”. Not a single other person at the meeting (and it was mostly women at a pretty large meeting) expressed any support, and most of the rest of the meeting was a string of cis women of all ages actively saying they disagreed with him. It just isn’t an issue for most people.

(Also, ever notice the tension between “cis people are pretending to be trans to avoid being the victims of homophobia” and “cis men are pretending to be lesbians”?)

Not much different than what happens among heterosexual groups, with some men believing they have a right to, at minimum, attention from the opposite sex.

I personally believe that there is a set of mantras that help solve all the debates:

Everyone has a right to be attracted to who they are attracted to.
Everyone has a right to not return the attraction.
Everyone has a right to say "no" and have that accepted at face value.
Everyone has a right to be free of continual, unwanted attraction.

The first and last can be in conflict with each other, obviously, and can get tricky to balance.

There can be a lot of nuances involved, but focusing on the basics can go a long way IMHO. To address a few details:

Not everyone has the right to act on their attraction (depends on who is involved; in an ideal world, no one would be attracted to vulnerable beings, but we don't live in an ideal world).

Everyone has a right to have visual or superficial elements be part of that attraction (regardless of if such preferences are wise or common; that is none of anyone else's business unless you make it their business - which a lot of rude people unfortunately do).

They strongly disagree with these three. A direct comparison has been made with the idea of "sexual racism" - that is if you are not attracted to someone because of their racial features - you are a racist. And no one has the right to be racist. It follows then that no one has the right to be unattracted to specific genitals or body types or knowledge of a person's "gender history". Saying no to the bearded, dress wearing "lady" is transphobia or cissexism. Checkmate lesbians.

The Daily Mail quoting and paraphrasing the BBC's quotes and paraphrases of Stonewall.

Do you have any relevant direct quotes (preferably more than just a phrase or two) from Stonewall?

I don't trust the Daily Mail, especially as a source on LGBTQ+ matters.