Accio Empathy
In other universe — a universe in which I don’t have any critical thinking skills, or Twitter — I’d still be a Harry Potter fangirl. I own not one but two copies of all seven books (eight, if you count the Cursed Child, but who does). I’ve seen all of the films a hundred times over. I once re-enacted The Potter Puppet Pals — The Mysterious Ticking Noise with my friends in the playground at school, which we then put onto Facebook (please, whoever finds that video…delete it). I did the Pottermore house quiz (Slytherin and Ravenclaw interchangeably). I own a Slytherin mug and jumper. I don’t own a wand, and I’ve never been to the Harry Potter studios, though I have ducked into the shop at King’s Cross a couple of times, and I never got a Deathly Hallows tattoo like everyone was suddenly getting back in, what, 2012? But apart from that, I’m about as die-hard as you can get.
I still think the books are, for the most part, well written. The sheer amount of planning alone that went into this universe is staggering, especially as planning is by far the worst part of fiction writing and I hate every second of it. J.K. Rowling could write a statement saying she will from now on be living her life as a shaman and using voodoo dolls of the scary, pink-haired activists that clearly intimidate her in order to further promote her fucking Robert Galbraith books, and I’d think: ‘…Yeah, but she came up with the Marauders, so am I really going to chuck those first editions away?’
When I was young — and, honestly, up until the last few years — I had admired Rowling hugely. Here she was, a self-made woman who had been through hell and back — whether through her experiences of domestic abuse, living on the poverty line, or depression — who had created one of the most successful franchises in the world, beloved by children, teenagers and adults alike. (I vividly remember buying Deathly Hallows in Woolworths. Woolworths!) But it wasn’t only her talent I admired: she also spoke openly about her distaste for the modelling industry, which she said (rightly) promoted eating disorders in young people (sorry: young women). We all know the story of how Evanna Lynch secured her part as Luna Lovegood. Rowling’s empathy for the vulnerable, the underdogs, and those misunderstood, was characterised beautifully in the series. We empathise with the Muggle-born characters, we learn that the ‘purity’ spiel of the ‘Pure-blood’ wizards is bullshit, we learn authority cannot always be trusted, we learn that people are complicated and motives are often ulterior rather than overt.
But then, slowly but surely, I, like many others, began to notice cracks my once-perfect childhood stories. People began to question the choice of Cho Chang’s name; if you didn’t know, her first name is a Korean surname, and ‘Chang’ is Chinese, which is rather confusing, especially considering the almost painstaking attention to detail Rowling was known for. The lack of outward racial diversity in Hogwarts was also brought to attention, with the exception of some small inclusions. That’s not to mention the anti-Semitic undertones of there being only one known Jewish Hogwarts pupil (big up Anthony), to the overtones of the goblin bankers, their physical descriptions being something that’s really quite uncomfortable to read with 2020 vision. It seemed the saga surrounding Dumbledore’s sexuality, revealed post-series, without so much as an answer to the representation of other LGBTQ students at the school, was just the tip of the iceberg.
A lot of this, I think, might be forgivable if Rowling was willing to listen and learn. Something along the lines of ‘Sorry everyone, the majority of this was written in the 1990s and I didn’t even know any gay people apart from Elton John’ or an honest ‘I was too lazy to properly research Chinese names, and I won’t ever make that mistake again’ — something that told us she wasn’t too wrapped up in her own genius to acknowledge some legitimate criticisms. Sadly, this hasn’t been the case.
Rowling has only since been digging herself deeper, seemingly refusing to log off and electing to change the story in a re-writing-history kind of way that has only spurned memes and eyerolls (‘Hagrid was actually a pansexual member of ISIS’ is probably my favourite). If you had told 12-year-old me that, one day, I could follow my Favourite Ever Author on Twitter, having a good nosy at how her brilliant mind worked, I would have wept tears of joy. That is a quite striking difference to reality, in which my 23-year-old self doesn’t even follow her, and if my memory serves, never has.
And from December, after the previous murmurings of her transphobia, it became impossible for anyone, the most die-hard of her novels, to ignore the reality: Rowling’s issue with trans people, most notably trans women, is real, and vitriolic, and not going anywhere. She’s not simply a middle-aged white woman learning clumsily, and she’s not simply ignorant. She is purposeful. So put down your quills, Gryffindors! And pick up your wands, TERF-haters!!!
(Can we also talk about the irony of her Tweet, below, in which she goes off about the fact she’s been called numerous names, including ‘witch’? Jo, that word alone bought you your house. I don’t think now is the time to start acting as though ‘witch’ is a slur. There are girls on Pinterest with that word tattooed on their wrists. Hot Topic has it on t-shirts. Grow up).
So: to her new statement on her issue (or not!) with the trans community. I won’t go over it all, because people far more clever, articulate and qualified will do that better than me, and it’s also really fucking long. Like her, though, I’ll make five main points.
1. She’s clearly really salty about the fact Daniel Radcliffe spoke out against her
This is apparent from the following paragraph: ‘But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).’
While I don’t doubt that some people speak out on societal issues so the so-called ‘outrage mob’ won’t eat them alive, when they don’t actually support what they say they do (LGBTQ rights, Black Lives Matter, feminism), I think this is a really sad response to Daniel Radcliffe’s clear message of support to trans people, which he released only the other day via the website The Trevor Project, a charity that helps vulnerable and suicidal LGBTQ youth.
Accusing him, or anyone, of simply being too cowardly to face the backlash that might come from not being supportive of trans people, is a weak and easy way of discrediting anybody that supports trans rights. Isn’t that what self-serving people (sorry: men and women) tend to say about so-called ‘do-gooders’? That they do or say good things purely for personal gain? An attitude that is total unfounded crap, obviously. Maybe she needs to read some Rutger Bregman.
Of course there will be people, such as well-seeming politicians, who don’t ‘get’ trans rights, but say they do in order to appeal to the youth vote. But isn’t that…good? Isn’t it good that activists have used their platforms so thoroughly that any discrimination towards one of the most marginalised groups in the world today is met with furore? We — on the left, in the UK, at least — expect our politicians to uphold the rights of gay and lesbian people, and you can’t support LGB people without supporting the T too, Jo. Read up on Marsha P. Johnson if you think you can.
2. Associating trans people with her own sexual assault
We can infer, due to the fact she would have mentioned it if it wasn’t the case, that a cisgender man was responsible for Rowling’s sexual assault. Sexual assault is one of the most heinous things that can happen to a person (sorry: a woman), yet is horrendously common. You don’t need me to outline this, I’m sure.
As someone who has experienced sexual assault and harassment to varying degrees, I can’t express how angry it made me to see Rowling use her experience of sexual assault alongside her — to quote — ‘jumpiness’ around the fact trans people might use their preferred bathrooms and preferred pronouns. My incidents were with cis men, too, and there’s no doubt that they have created, to use her term, some ‘jumpiness’ in myself. But why is that the fault of any trans person? I don’t see trans men or women as my potential attackers, specifically. I don’t see anyone who wants me to call them the name they weren’t given at birth as someone inconveniencing me. I don’t see — to use a lovely phrase from a blog she once favourited — ‘men in dresses’ as an issue. The tip of the iceberg? One of the incidences I experienced was in a public bathroom. The only people (sorry! men!) I fear when I enter spaces in which they are usually prohibited are those with ill-intent. That’s it. And, as studies will tell you, it is far more likely to be cis people who show discrimination or malice towards trans people than vice versa.
Rowling’s reaction to trans women is quite clearly a gut reaction that she has associated with her attack. Whilst she has my deepest sympathy regarding her assault, one which has clearly left deep scars, using it as a tool against trans people under the guise of ‘gender criticism’ is neither helpful to herself, nor to the countless trans people whose lives she will have, up until now, touched through the useful escapism of her novels.
Also, this is asinine, but: weren’t Harry and Ron in the girl’s bathroom when they were helping Hermione make the Polyjuice potion in HP2? Did anyone check if Moaning Myrtle was ok with them being there?? What’s that? She enjoyed it and also flirted with them and it was really weird to watch??? Bloody cis ghosts!
3. The coded language
Online trans people have ‘attacked’ her. They ‘abused’, ‘harassed’ and ‘police[d]’ her. Listen: Twitter is a horrible place to be mobbed. On Facebook, it’s just your parents’ weird mates, and on Tumblr everyone has anime avatars and usernames like ‘kermit-feet-pics’, you can just change your own username if shit goes down, and nobody’s any the wiser. But on Twitter everyone’s out for blood, and celebrities are here and they’re bored on lockdown, and then there are also the anonymous anime avatar kermit-feet-pics types, but because it’s Twitter they can also say the n-word and not get banned. It’s a hellscape. I wouldn’t wish Twitter cancellation on anyone. Well, maybe a few people (sorry: men and women!!!)
But for Rowling to contrast these horrible, ‘abusive’ types (people who probably just want her to log off, for the most part), with the ‘kind, empathetic and intelligent’ people (i.e., people who agree with her) who sent her messages of support? Which reads, let’s be honest, as angry-trans-people vs kind-and-lovely-cis-people? Dog-whistling at its finest.
4. I’m not trans so nobody is
If Rowling had spent an ounce of the time she had allegedly spent reading ‘sundry books, blogs and articles’ by a panoply of colourful characters, online and in the Deep Web of anonymous user sites such and Reddit and Tumblr, she’d know for a fact that people (sorry: men and women) do explore their gender identities complexly. I have seen mutuals of mine change their names a couple of times, switch from IDing from trans to non-binary, and try out pronouns like hats. It’s not simply a case that someone wakes up one day, not feeling very feminine, and thinks I Will Never Wear Pink Again and Also I’m Called Stephen Now. The ‘nuance’ that she claims is now in the gutter is actually in these spaces. Young people have the opportunity to explore how they feel about their own gender in a way that probably has never existed before, without having to resort to 1980s ‘books and music’ to get by. I get that it’s a big step for some: we’ve just about got past, as a society, people who change their minds on their own sexual orientation — identifying as straight, then gay, then bisexual, or any number of combinations. Now it’s time we got over this, too.
Also, piss off with all the Simone de Beauvoir quotes, I doubt she’d have been on your bullshit either. (Although Germaine Greer might). We get it, you read widely around gender politics. If only you’d read further than an Asian fusion restaurant menu when you were naming your non-white characters.
5. Overall defensiveness
I’ll admit it: if Rowling has really read as widely as she says she has, then I tip my hat to her. At least she tried her best to come to some conclusion other than revulsion and fear. It’s just a shame she didn’t.
In her manifesto, she comes across as passive-aggressive, world-weary, spiteful, and haughty. Her points are also holed with hypocrisy. If she’s so aware, for example, that trans people ‘need and deserve protection’, which they do, why isn’t that a focal point of her activism? Why does she write a sentence like ‘”woman” is not a costume’ and not understand that this isn’t something any self-described trans woman is trying to emulate — that, in fact, trans women are downright terrified of their gender being simply reduced to a ‘costume’? She’s had some controversy of her own, but Natalie Wynn’s YouTube videos are free to watch, if you want to start off your journey into getting the Trans Thing on Easy mode.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is this: trans people die. They die from suicide in horrifying numbers. They are murdered at high rates. It has been suggested that the average life expectancy of a trans woman in America is just 35, though this statistic has since been brought into question.
They die from the intolerance of others and they die from their own self-loathing largely caused by the intolerance of others. You know that, Jo, and yet you persist with your trans-exclusionary feminism (you can take the ‘radical’ out, if it makes you feel better). The people you cite in your article who are afraid of trans men entering changing rooms and bathrooms, including that weird ‘unfeminist’ old lady who has vowed she will never darken the doorway of an M&S again (lol?) are simply that: afraid. There are no statistics that back up these fears. That’s because incidents in which cis men exploit systems designed to protect trans people — and, yes, there are some — are so marginal they don’t compare with the violence that trans people themselves face every day. If one did deign to tear their eyes off a Simone de Beauvoir phrasebook and check these statistics for one second, they might find their fears to be, fittingly, a lot of hocus pocus.
We know what fear among the privileged and powerful look like. It looks like systemic racism. It looks like police brutality. It looks like the 1980s AIDS crisis. It looks like outward apathy towards statistics that show you you’re wrong. So yes, Jo: you can have my empathy and understanding, to a point. But citing ‘threats and abuse’ in order to shrug off any legitimate criticisms? Reducto. Sorry: reductive.
