Is JK transphobic: A critical analysis

[LitCritChick]

Following the posting of this 'proof' on another forum, I did an analysis.
katymontgomerie.medium.com/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f

Introduction

The first issue I come across in the introduction is the claim that JK's essay is purposefully too long to obscure the facts and true intent. The essay takes around 9 minutes for a slow reader I would estimate, and is a concise, whilst personal communication of the main problems JK has with the erosion of women. It's hardly surprising, as the other side relies on snappy slogans that don't stand up to much deconstruction, #twawnodebate.

^JKR’s original post was long and it contained so many falsehoods it is very tricky to address concisely, therefore this article is very long.^

Now, this statement I would argue is false, yet implies the writer has done the leg work so you don't have to read the original essay. However, I would estimate it to be around the same length as J K Rowling's essay so the save you time argument falls flat. It does, however give it's own reading of the text which happily I have spent some time looking into so here goes. (Literature nuts please feel welcome to deconstruct as we go. It's no Heart of Darkness, but it is an interesting analysis exercise.

I do apologise as I am not being super careful with my punctuation or editing because large blocks of text can be lost by accident.
I've had a look back and sometimes my own criticism blends with the statements of the text. Hope it doesn't obscure the meaning too much. Mumsnet needs an edit button!

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

This section basically asserts that it doesn't exist and is actually a conversion therapy justification in disguise.

^Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)’ is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association”. There is only one single paper that attempts to provide any evidence for the existence of this phenomenon by Lisa Littman.^

It cites that because only parents and not trans people took part the paper is null and void.
Now, it can be argued that the reason for no subsequent papers being published is the current climate of silencing and cancel culture. The argument above also relies on the false premise that because something hasn't been extensively studied it is obviously wrong or without merit to study.

I find the argument that there's not enough evidence lacking, but do note that at this point the writer conflates trans with the medically recognised gender dysphoria.

D^^esistance, Detransition and “If I Were a Kid Today I Would Have Been Transed”
I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition
No. You wouldn’t have. This is a very common GC claim, the argument usually goes “when I was little I played with barbie/action man, therefore today I would have transitioned, but I am happy as I am today, so that would be bad, therefore we should ban everyone”. This is part of the wider GC view that being trans is just about what you wear or what your hobbies are, and also that specialist doctors hand out diagnoses of hugely complicated conditions like they’re prescribing paracetamol over the counter. No trans person thinks that they are trans because they liked painting their nails or climbing trees. As a kid I liked lego, trains and maths and pretty much nothing else and I was still trans. Doctors don’t diagnose kids as trans unless they show persistent dysphoria, and have gone through therapy for years.^^

I think this is an important quote for what it does not say as much as what it does say. It denies JK would have been interpreted as trans because it denies stereotypes as trans. This is important because currently diagnosis for gender dysphoria is heavily based on stereotypes, yet here we are told with absolute certainty what trans is not. Note that so far it's been defined as gender dysphoria (yet as we've seen earlier, there's an unwillingness to see it as a medical condition that needs treatment other than surgical and affirmation) and not stereotypes.
A graph is then used to try and explain the upsurge in cases. Population and acceptance are given as the reasons for the acceleration. I note that the number 4400 is used instead of the percentage. This could either be a genuine language or maths mistake, or a deliberate attempt to skew the data.
It briefly covers destranstion only to deride feminists for hopping on this tiny statistic, in addition to not campaigning for better medical support for them. As a GC advocate for mental health, I know that I and many other GC feminists would absolutely make this a priority, but as demonstrated above any suggestions for mental health support are met with accusations of conversion.
Mainly, his section then frets over the people who may not transition at a young age who want to or who are 'converted' back by outside pressures. Young teenagers who may change their minds are only brought up so they can be compared with older teens who don't. The focus is very much on this group of people and how they'll miss out rather than on those that could potentially transition and realise it's a mistake.

Damn, italics fail.

Ooh missed this, place marking.

I did lots of my mn activism during baby naps.

Toddler decided to drop nap today 😭 another year and a half before school...

I feel for you. DS is not napping well and got up at 5am today.
I never knew about 5am before him. Always asleep!

Oh I feel your pain!

Ds also isn't sleeping well from 2-6, I'm wondering if nap dropping will help.

He's an incoherent tyrant for most of the day though.

Sorry, hope not to derail, but the point is many of us can only do this stuff during naps / breastfeeding. (I had a very fat bf baby...)

Whereas tra keyboard warriors have too much Time On Their Hands.

Misogyny

A denial of tra similarities to incel culture and flat out refusal to acknowledge misogyny levelled at GC women.

^Incels, and in fact the entire “manosphere”, generally have the same views of trans people and trans rights as Gender Critical people. They will regularly be seen allying together in arguments online, and sometimes you can’t even tell them apart. This is why so often you see “TERFs are Nazis” being thrown around online, because they have the same views on trans rights.^

I'll concede that to a trans person, they may feel GC and misogynists are united against them, but this is of course ignoring the fact that feminists are defending their sex based rights, which are being attacked, whereas incel hostility will be fueled by misogyny and homophobia. There's also the undeniable fact that people with opposing views will agree on scientific fact, such as biology: I loathe Piers Morgan but we both believe women gestate and men ejaculate- it's our interpretation of how these facts affect our world view that differ.
It then goes on to equate TERFs with Nazis (I assume they mean a broad application of neo maxi here, but of course it's irrelevant as it's a baseless slur.)
The idea that transwomen suffer misogyny is then broached and that GC individuals are trying to take protection from this away. Again, it's an obvious misrepresentation of the feminist position. Interestingly enough trans people certainly do suffer at the hands of men, but this is homophobia and toxic masculinity fueled on the whole. Trans incidents of hate have been self reported to be high, but data on rape and murder certainly in the UK does not reflect the pattern of men's attacks on women.

^trans women have been at the front of many struggles for women’s rights. Most recently seen in the fight for abortion rights in Ireland. The idea that a trans woman who experiences sexism every day is actually part of a conspiracy to take away women’s ability to organise by saying “yes this affects me too” is bordering on delusional.^

I would counter this with the scary behaviour of tra at the French sex worker protests. Screaming at trafficking survivors is not very feminist. Again, if these people are not representative of the trans community, the writer fails to address it by ignoring the issue.

^As a feminist I cannot think of much more important than making sure that women are able to organise and fight against their oppression, and this has to include all women or you aren’t fighting against the patriarchy, you are just fighting for yourself, and you end up being part of it and oppressing everyone else.^

I feel that this is an important quote as it highlights why we can never see eye to eye. This person is operating under the illusion that twaw. This is where the comparisons with race etc. often come in as if tw were a sub section of women it would be unfair to include them, but as they are socialised as men and have benefited from the patriarchy they can't be grouped as such.

It also raises the question: where does the umbrella of woman and who is championed by feminism end? Tw? Non binary? Gay men? Male allies? With the boundaries blurred like this we simply end u0 with. A small group of men and a larger group of non men.

Woman as a costume

Once again, we are given the idea of what being trans is 'not'.
^ I personally know “masculine” trans women, and butch lesbian trans women, and trans women who play guitar in a death metal band (me!). I know “feminine” trans men, trans men who love makeup and dresses, trans men who are drag queens. Not only are trans people more likely to be “gender non-conforming” than cis people; the claim that they aren’t is in direct contradiction to the other main GC claim: that “men are now just saying they are women and aren’t transitioning”! It can’t be both that trans people think that just wearing a dress makes someone a woman AND that trans women “don’t even bother to wear dresses”.^

This argument that GC feminists misrepresent trans people is pretty unfair. As noted above, the writer has pinned it as gender dysphoria. The writer has also claimed mental help is a form of conversion therapy simultaneously while stating trans people go through lots of mental health services before any changes are made. If GC people have it wrong, it's on the trans community to correct this official definition, as stereotypes are denied to be a part of it. Myself I would consider that a priority before berated others for not understanding.
Similarly here we see the GC position twisted. Tw sit uncomfortably with women because they often (not always) boil down being a woman to degrading stereotypes. (Caitlin Jenner- the hardest part of being a woman is deciding what to wear).
The other concern is that if self I'd broadens out woman to be anyone who says they are regardless of presentation, that male predators who ARE NOT trans will take advantage of the situation and loopholes.

Once again we see two very separate ideas mixed to give the impression that the GC position is irrational. JK is very clear in her essay that these are separate ideas so the fact that they are being conflated shows either a misunderstanding of the original text or a misrepresentation.

Domestic abuse

Now, credit where credit is due; the writer expresses both empathy for JK's experience of domestic violence, but also condemnation of the Sun newspaper running the story from her ex.

So I am pleased the writer could appreciate this very personal experience of JKs for what it is.

Just want to add my thanks for doing this. Really good analysis. Still processing and need to go back to the start. But fab.

(It always boils down to) bathrooms

Interestingly, the writer claims to be from the UK. Now that may be true, but this section really underlies that these are USA arguments.
The first part of this section implies that trans women have been using 'bathrooms'(toilets to us natives) for years so GC people have nothing to complain about. It suggests because there's no specific toilet laws this has always been the case.
This obviously ignores the fact that public toilets run on a social contract rather than a legal one. It also sidesteps the fact that the trans umbrella is now so huge it doesn't just imply that a handful of transitioned new ladies peeing.
It says all self I'd problems are hypothetical. I would refer you to the it'll never happen thread at this point.
There are then several anecdotal USA stories, including one where a natal woman was so manly she got put in the men's prison.

I absolutely don't doubt that being trans in America sucks. That they have all sorts of horrible transphobic problems there. In the USA they don't even have a proper maternity leave so of course I don't doubt trans people are treated nastily too.

But this is so irrelevant to JK.
JK is British.
This is Britain.
Moving on.

Definitely needs its own thread and glad you’ve done this.

Fear

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

This section starts by outlining trans people as the most oppressed and in danger of violence instead of addressing the very visible violence in the community.

^In 11 countries it is against the law and punishable by the death penalty to be a trans person.^

Now that is a statistic that proves being trans has yet to reach worldwide acceptance. But they aren't the only vulnerable group. Being gay is illegal in 70+ countries. Sharia law in 15, which is the first stay I could think of that shows the victimisation of women. No countries have 'banned' being a woman but plenty don't allow them to leave the house without a male chaperone or condone honour killings. The existence of violence to trans people does not justify violence to get their needs met. It is not GC people who impose the death penalty on trans, gay or women but conservative patriarchal society.
What then follows is examples from America presumably of transphobia. Trans people losing jobs, justification of being killed.
This just would not be allowed to happen in the UK, our employment laws are very robust and our equality laws are scrupulously followed by hr. Again, this is irrelevant to JK, but the US has awful employment laws where women can be sacked for getting pregnant or for receiving sexual harrasment.

^Countless trans people have messaged me to say they’re terrified of the state of trans acceptance in the UK. New Zealand has already accepted an asylum request from a British trans woman over it. Almost every trans person I speak to fears for their future, on top of the baseline fear of transphobia that all trans people deal with. The general mood in the trans community after JKR’s letter was one of utter exhaustion and fear.^

Again we have the framing of the UK as some kind of transphobic nest of vipers. No proof here, all 'feelings'. The UK does happen to be a fairly liberal place, equality for women has of course not been reached but it is openly striven for unlike in the middle East or the deep south of the us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the place where women are able to meet and use their voices for feminist causes is at the receiving end of accusations of being steeped in transphobia. The movement acknowledges it's clashes with feminist ideology but then tries to frame it as something outward seeking and harmful that it is not. Women in the UK organise for women in the UK and only oppose trans needs that dismantle current protections for women.
It then goes on to partially condemn tra violence and silencing in a veiled, non committal way, before concluding that the ends justify the means.

^^As if trans people across the entire country aren’t utterly terrified of losing the freedoms they have today. If you have a heinous view you should expect backlash when you express it.
It takes far more guts to stand up against a multi-millionaire, people who want to take your rights away, and irrational prejudice than it does to “stand up” to one of the most marginalised minorities in the country.^^

Again, note that we have slipped out of UK law and rights here into no-mansland (pun intended) in the UK, trans people are very well protected by UK equality law so we must again assume that the 'rights' they refer to here are 'rights' that have occurred due to the misapplication of the equality act to erode single sex spaces, positive discrimination (such as the women's posts created specifically for government to help with equal representation.)

For an essay supposedly on JK Rowling by a UK based writer, it contains very little uk information. If the UK were such a hotbed of unfair transphobia, you'd expect examples to be used to illustrate it. Especially in an essay this long.
Counteract to this verbal abuse and no platforming of women can very easily be found in the UK and there are numerous examples on this board alone.

Conclusion

Once again we have the framing of GC as a dangerous, irrational fringe. Another dark mirror quote here:

^Gender Critical is a rabbit hole, it could be described as a conspiracy theory and is often described by ex-members as “cult-like”. From talking to ex-Gender Critical people it will be at best 2 or 3 years before she is able to snap out of it, though I personally suspect that she won’t ever change her mind even in the face of evidence. ^

Again, we see accusations and assumed knowledge here, but as the GC argument has been framed very poorly throughout the whole article I don't really think this person can say this with any authority based on fact. This is opinion presented as rational fact.

^don’t expect any Gender Critical person to actually engage with this article, most will have read her post and recognised it as The Gender Critical View, and will be primed to instantly disregard anything that disagrees with it.^

I have. I've read and analysed it, but there's so much I missed out on because I did this whilst baby was down for his naps. There's nothing new or even a real engagement with the original primary text here. I admit that I am disappointed. This is the first close analysis I have done since D's was born and I was hoping it might perhaps explain the opposing viewpoint as posters on here never do. It was signposted as a good, deep analysis of 'why jk is transphobic' and disappointingly doesn't live up to that.
It was an attempt at 'reader response' that didn't really engage with the text, so doesn't really offer the insight it promises.

What it does do is postures trans people as the most oppressed ever. That, coupled with loosely linked studies and example helps to flavour the GC view as transphobic. It works well as a propaganda piece for all it's clunkiness if you don't do too close a reading of it and take it at face value.
It's also very, very long and uses semi-academic language, which adds to it's authority by those who have not read the jk essay for themselves.
^My hope is to put the counter information out there. Trans people are outnumbered and outgunned — JKR had nearly as many Twitter followers as there are trans people on earth, and probably more money than all the trans people in the UK combined — the best we can hope for is to put the facts out there.^

We see here it ends with framing trans people as the underdog. Anyone looking at events in UK politics, particularly Scottish, will realise how absurd this is. But here we have the fact that JK is one of the very few people with financial armour to take on this beast used against her.

Damn I thought it was finished.

It then goes on to describe movements against trans people and women in the USA. This is largely irrelevant as no GC feminist would support what happens in the US.

It finishes with this.

^The UK, my home, has announced that they are probably planning to try and ban trans women from using the women’s facilities that they use today, and have done their whole lives without issue. This will ruin tens of thousands of people’s lives including my own, and put trans people and cis women in danger for demonstrably no gain. There is no evidence that trans women using the women’s facilities has caused any issues in any of the countries where they are legally allowed to do so, including the UK, Ireland and various American states.^

I'm not sure what this references. It could be the discussion of self id. It could be the review of GRC. As far as I know, no existing law has been repealed, but the social contract of single sex spaces has been clarified.

As to there being no gain, in closing I would point you to the this will never happen board. This argument, predictably, has ended up in the toilets, but the GC argument has so much more to it than 'just want to pee'. It's this lack of engagement with nuance and real life actions of tr activists that makes this article, in my opinion, a poor representation of the debate.

Annoyingly, ds is now asleep on me and I 'just want to pee'. Oh the humanit(ies)

I'm not a legal mind, I'm a literature one so I would greatly appreciate anyone who has a legal take on the points of the article. Particularly the US examples. It would be interesting to know what is really going on the other side of the pond.
It's this exporting of American problems, corruption and values that says to me this article doesn't really understand matters here in the UK.

So to sum up the main arguments were:

Guilt by association (Maya)
Guilt by association (Magdalen)
GC has far right links
Animals can change sex
Rapid Gender Dysphoria doesn't exist
Gender Dysphoria does
Trans isn't stereotypes
Feminism isn't inclusive enough
All violence against GC women is exaggerated
Trans women are more oppressed than women
GC is a cult
Detransition is the result of refusal of acceptance
Trans women are at risk from violence (presumably male)
Women aren't at any extra risk of violence from men
Trans men are not female
The US is unsafe
The UK is unsafe

And Ron is an entitled douche (ok, that is my one, but it's true!)

Thanks!