I do not belong on this list. I have not explicitly indicated I find her views transphobic. I have some issues with them, but I have not signed up for a Rowling-Haters membership card, thanks.
It's an interesting dualism: Either Rowling isn't transphobic, or it's a haters club.
I know you're accustomed to just saying whatever, Dave, without any regard for reality, but sometimes there are facts involved.
The people who think Rowling's behavior is transphobic are observing facts. The counterargument, in this thread and, yes, quite frequently at large, is is that is she's not transphobic because her supporters just don't like the word. It's a familiar argument we've heard before with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other prejudices.
Also, consider two things going on in this thread: That people are offended because I hold my line where and how I do is nothing new under the sun; neither is the part where they prove the point. Nobody should be surprised, for instance, that
TheVat↑ is holding out. If Parmalee and I read TheVat differently, it's because he accepted the implications TheVat tried to
project, while I'm still cynical about
TheVat's expectation↑ that "the Left" should "graciously" concede; it's also evident in his
topic-post recollection↑ of Chomsky in hopes of advancing the anti-trans argument. Y'know, just for instance.
I'm not psychic, Dave; it's just that people give themselves away. Look at Parmalee's list of seven, and watch who holds out. I'm not at all surprised to see DaveC426913 or TheVat affirm the double-negative, that they are not not-antitrans.
They're not bigots or supremacists; far from it. Rather, they're the true egalitarians, seeking a safe space for harm.
Like I said↗, there's no point in banging on the notas.
When the suggested gracious compromise is to rewind ten years and give over to supremacists, I take people at their word. Your response, Dave, at
#404↑ made it pretty clear. The question, "Did you catch the first line where I said I should get informed - the implication being I am currently not sufficiently informed?" does not actually address the question.
The revised version would appear to cover the point, but the three paragraphs of explanation each leave glaring questions for further discussion: Rape as a tributlation of biological females is
extraordinarily hamfisted and clumsy, a
you-didn't-just-say-that kind of reservation. And, maybe because Rowling says so, but there are plenty of groping philanderers who say they're not misogynists, because they
love women; similarly, some segregationists would say they don't hate black people, but want to respect them by excluding them. And one of the things about the horse's mouth is that it has a horse in the race, so to speak.
And the thing is, consider those other sources
I offered↗: Please understand, ca. 2018, in re a liked tweet she meant to screenshot, it was research because she had developed "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And those are her words, "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And for everyone paying attention at the time, those words meant something, because they take a side. It stands out when people assert neutrality by adopting partisan phrasing; sometimes, it's noise, but there are also occasions when it's unclear whether something was coincidence or evidence of the phenomenon it coincides with. In the moment, it's easy to pass over; in hindsight, it's hard to ignore.
(e.g., Topic post: "we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen", is a weighted contrast compared to a discourse depending on straw fallacies and complaints about the words critics use, which, of course, was the state of the discourse long before this thread on Rowling's behavior and transphobic prejudice, except apparently some people were completely unaware of how things went as late as last summer, at least.)
What we have in Rowling's own words, ca. 2023, is refusal and provocation: Actually looking to the
source tweet↱ shows us something more than the
Entertainment Weekly report told us: Rowling chose to pick that fight; she chose to post a photograph of some words and respond.
What safe space, then, do you think she requires? What is this thing where someone like Rowling takes an explicitly transphobic position but somehow remains aloof from the transphobia?
And, look, you don't need the
EW reporter's narrative to understand that Rowling's subsequent prison laundry jokes are precisely in line with
Sartre's description↑:
They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The supremacists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
One thing to keep in mind is the functional result: To follow these middle-roaders, who aren't
-phobic or
-ist, but just object to the criticism against the ism or phobia, the result is the continuance of infliction according to the needs of phobic ists.
It's not new.
____________________
Notes:
@jk_rowling. "No." Twitter. 17 October 2023. X.com. 22 May 2025. status/1714279937279160596
See Also:
Morrow, Brendan. "A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift". The Week. 25 April 2025. TheWeek.com. 22 May 2025. https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. 1944. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
Wang, Jessica. "J.K. Rowling says she would 'happily' do prison time for controversial transgender views". Entertainment Weekly. 19 October 2023. EW.com. 22 May 2025. https://ew.com/books/j-k-rowling-would-do-prison-time-for-transgender-views/
www.them.us
