For years now, many people have tried to defend Harry Potter author JK Rowling’s outright transphobia as a mere concern for things like safety in women’s prisons or a mere disagreement with some of the things that trans activists (and, you know, actual doctors) believe. They have demanded to know what, exactly, she has said that is “actually transphobic.” Then, when given examples, they have claimed that, for whatever reason, those examples just don’t count. It’s worth noting that literally zero of these people could reasonably be described as “not transphobic” themselves.
But it’s going to be real hard to characterize Rowling’s recent attacks on newsreader India Willoughby as anything but sheer bigotry having absolutely nothing to do with any hypothetical “protection” of cis women and everything to do with hatred of trans women.
In response to someone on social media pointing out that Rowling was suggesting that Willoughby, a trans woman who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, ought to use a men’s locker room, Rowling snidely wrote, “You've sent me the wrong video. There isn't a lady in this one, just a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means: narcissistic, shallow and exhibitionist.”
Then, in response to another question from that same person about why a misogynist who hated women would choose to live as a woman, she wrote, “India didn't become a woman. India is cosplaying a misogynistic male fantasy of what a woman is.”
Allow me to point out that there are plenty — plenty! — of cis women who do that as well, in a variety of ways, consciously or subconsciously. Any idea about women or what women are can be misogynistic, and is, in fact, misogynistic once you throw the word “should” in there. There are misogynistic ways to believe that women shouldn’t wear makeup or care about clothes or “draw attention to themselves” or that they ought to be the very opposite of what someone else considers “narcissistic, shallow and exhibitionist.”
In fact, allow me to also put it out there that I hear a whole lot more vile misogyny from people who are angry about this or that woman “drawing attention to herself” than I do about wallflowers.
We are, all of us, cosplaying all of the time in one way or another. Some of us more literally than others, right now, at this very moment, as we are writing this very article.
We are inspired by other people, we have ideas about who and what we want to be, what we want to look like, what we want other people to think about us, etc. etc. If what India Willoughby is doing is “cosplay,” then so is that.
Rowling’s entire timeline these days is dedicated exclusively to hating on trans women, who she imagines are swaths of cisgender men simply pretending to be trans in order to look at naked women or be housed in a women’s prison. She does not appear to think about anything else. I briefly assumed she was upset about an instance of animal abuse, based on one tweet, but it turns out that she was upset about it because a trans woman did it and it would be “counted” as a woman doing a crime.
It sounds like an exhausting way to live. In her hysteria over trans women, she is the one making ridiculous and deeply anti-feminist generalizations about women in general. She is, in fact, promoting an ass-backwards version of feminism that even she does not adhere to her own self — in which women are bad and “shallow” gender-traitors for wearing make-up or heels.
In reality, of course, we contain motherfucking multitudes and personal “depth” has nothing at all to do with one’s ability to do a perfect smokey eye or their affinity for fancy shoes — and their inability or dislike of those things would, on that same note, not mean that they are not a woman. The misogynistic lie is that we have to be one or the other, or that there is any personality trait or sartorial preference at all that would somehow disqualify one from being a woman.
Rowling, as several pointed out on social media, often dyes her hair blonde, has had plastic surgery and generally had the whole second season glow-up after the success of her books.
And you know what? Good for her! If she feels better about herself, then good for her. I mean that. Because I actually think it’s weird and shitty to be a jerk about other people making changes that make them feel better or more attractive or more like themselves or more comfortable in their own bodies, whatever that means to them. Why wouldn’t you want people to feel more comfortable in their own bodies? Hmmm?
JK Rowling produced a work that people — including me — really, really loved, something that inspired them to be good people, to enjoy reading, or to just really, really want to drink whatever the hell butterbeer was supposed to be (they do make an unlicensed version that’s like a butter rum Lifesaver soda and it’s delicious), and she tainted it forever by being a gross bigot. That sucks. She clearly doesn’t care and has said so many times, usually while bragging about how rich she is, but it still sucks. It’s not about “cancellation,” it’s about repulsing people so much that they can’t even enjoy the things they used to enjoy anymore without feeling weird about it.
I hope that someday she sees the error of her ways and changes, but for now, the next time anyone asks, “What has JK Rowling said that is transphobic?” you’ve got a pretty good example.
PREVIOUSLY:
J K Rowling once had a HUGE fandom. Apparently, she now wants a much smaller and more exclusive fandom. Either that, or she's upset about all the fans she has lost and now considers them to be sour grapes.
Her new fans are not the company that I would want to keep. They are bigots who take refuge in her celebrity. Something that I have learned from Trump and his minions is that bigots NEED celebrities. Without celebrity endorsement of their bigotry, the bigots would lose their status and with it their courage. Quite a lot of them would crawl back into the woodwork where they came from, and wouldn't that just be too bad?
I find it strange that J K Rowling should embrace a form of biological determinism so strict that it totally excludes human psychology. In the last Harry Potter novel, the recently dead Dumbledore said to the hero: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" Today, J K Rowling dismisses everything that transgender people know and feel about themselves, because nothing inside their heads can possibly be real if it doesn't match what their pediatrician once found between their legs. If only J K Rowling's empathy would stretch as far as her imagination once did, she would be a much better person.
I really don't care what she thinks about trans folks.
I'm mostly just sad for Harry Potter. Seriously. I loved the Harry Potter books, and she's tainting her legacy.
Ciaobella Jr. is visiting London in April, and he was thinking about going to Harry Potter World, but he and his friends are wavering on that because of her awfulness.