Conversations about JK Rowling

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

I'm friends with a group of women who are mainly based in the US and Canada, and all politically left leaning. I deliberately do not mention anything to do with gender because I know that they are all very TWAW and would be horrified to learn that I am not. A particular subset of this group are big fans of Harry Potter but by common consensus do not talk about JK Rowling because they're all so disappointed about her stance on this issue.

Recently, however, one of them started a private conversation with me about JK Rowling. We had previously talked about the Cormoran Strike series and in particular about how Troubled Blood is not a transphobic book and the people claiming it is have clearly not read it. Then recently I sent her a message saying that the title of the next book has just been announced.

Out of nowhere, she said she wished JK Rowling would stop being transphobic so everyone could just go back to being a fan. I'm fairly sure that my friend had sensed that my views aren't aligned with those of the rest of the group and was testing me.

I didn't want to lie to my friend, and more importantly I didn't want to take the coward's way out and pretend that I also think JK Rowling is a hateful bigot when she has been so brave in sticking her head above the parapet in front of the entire world on this issue.

So I started by asking my friend whether she had actually read JK Rowling's essay. She replied that she had skim read it, but really, she was just appalled by the whole thing. I said I had read the whole thing because when people started accusing her of transphobia I wanted to find out what she had actually said, and judge for myself. I said I didn't agree that she was transphobic, but that she has serious concerns about women's rights and child safeguarding. I also said that in the UK, the idea that women should have some single sex spaces and sports is one that most people support. My friend said she actually agreed with that.

My friend then said that whilst there might be valid arguments to be made around single sex spaces, the way JK Rowling has expressed her views has been really harmful, especially given the context of the way LGBTQ people are being treated in many parts of America.

I responded by saying that context is important. JK Rowling doesn't live in America, she lives in the UK. In the UK we have no political equivalent of the American right wing, because even our Conservatives are more akin to the US Democrats on both economic and social issues. JK Rowling does not live in America, she doesn't vote in their elections and she's not responsible for who the American people elect to represent them or what they do. She is, however, entitled to have an opinion and to speak about what is happening in her own country, i.e. the UK and more specifically, Scotland.

I then went on to list some of the most concerning things that have happened in the UK and particularly in Scotland over the last few years, with a particular focus on prisons, rape crisis services and Maya Forstater. I told her about what had led to JK Rowling deciding to set up and solely fund Beira's place, and that trans activists had been trying to have it forced to accept male survivors or shut down. I told her all about Mridul Wadhwa, quoting extensively from the horse's mouth.

I also said that JK Rowling is far from the only person to be concerned about irreversible medical interventions being performed on trans identifying children, and expressed my private belief that puberty blockers are likely to be banned across Europe within a few years, given that the UK and France are now following the lead of the Scandinavian countries in putting the brakes on some of these practices, because the long term evidence in favour of them is really not good.

She said she understood all of that but wished that JK Rowling had not chosen this hill to die on, and that even though these issues are important, she feels that the harm caused to the LGBTQ community has been greater than the small benefit to other groups from speaking out. I said I disagreed, and that for female prisoners and rape survivors, as well as children who will now hopefully get more ethically responsible healthcare, these are not small matters.

I finished by picking up on a particular point she had made about JK Rowling suggesting she "doesn't believe trans women are women" and I said that I think the "trans women are women" mantra is actually really harmful to women because we all have our arms twisted to say it, and then the fact that we have said it is used as a justification for taking away our single sex rape crisis support or letting male athletes compete in our sports. I said that a few years ago I would have said that trans women are women but now I think it's a lot more complicated than that and if she's being honest with herself, so does she.

She never replied to that last message but she is continuing to engage with me in the group chat. I am not planning to talk to her about this issue again unless she specifically brings it up. But I privately believe that the message hit home and now she doesn't know what to do with it.

In the end the desire to have a final word was too strong and I reached out to the woman I had my initial conversation with. Either she is less intellectually curious than I thought or the peer pressure is too strong.

She said that I should consider that the fact that 50 intelligent women disagree with me is evidence that I am wrong about this. No awareness of the fact that that is exactly how echo chambers work.

I said that the reason 50 intelligent women disagreeing with me hasn't caused me to re-evaluate my opinion is because they demonstrated no sign of having actually understood the arguments of the people they were vilifying, and no desire to understand.

Believe it or not, I haven't ruled out the possibility that I am wrong about this. But in order to change my mind I would need people on the opposing side of the debate to engage with me sensibly, show that they have understood what my position is and what people like JK Rowling and other gender critical feminists are saying, and actually explain why they disagree. Frothing about TERFs and bigots just isn't going to cut it.

Anyway, she blocked me.

Oh and her parting shot was "the fact that you are still talking about JKR tells me everything I need to know".

Which I thought was deeply ironic given that she lives rent free in their heads.

This was such a good listen - I mentioned I was listening to it to a friend and didn’t even say what I had concluded I just wanted to understand better - and my friend said the fact I was even listening to it was offensive and that I even wanted to talk about j k Rowling was upsetting her as she is a ‘hate speaker’. She said jk Rowling should be cancelled and destroyed for the things she’d said but that Diane Abbott should be forgiven for what she said about Jewish people because she had ‘said sorry’. She said she hadn’t actually read the essay as she didn’t need to.

she then shut me down saying she didn’t feel psychologically safe talking about this and left me feeling ashamed and furious and we’ve never spoken about it again.

we’ve been friends since we were kids so I’m not about to cut ties but felt very disappointed that the ‘liberal left’ now means furiously cancelling and shaming anyone who disagrees with you. It feels so bigoted and the opposite of what I grew up thinking it meant to be liberal or lefty.

You know what, this illustrates exactly what the problem is.

I've listened to speeches and read articles written by Tory politicians without becoming a Tory. Ditto with Labour.

I've listened to what Trump has to say and I still think he's a piece of shit.

I could read Mein Kampf to try to understand Hitler's mentality and I'm certain that it wouldn't turn me into a raging Nazi.

So what are they so afraid of?

If they're so secure in their own position, why wouldn't they want to understand the opposing arguments, so that they are better able to refute them?

If someone is afraid to even expose themselves to an opposing viewpoint, in my opinion the likelihood that they are wrong increases exponentially.

I have considered both sides of this argument, in detail. They haven't.

I would much rather be wrong.

If I could wake up tomorrow having had an epiphany that trans women really are women and I have been wrong about everything, I would be a little embarrassed, but it would be so much easier than holding an opinion that can get you fired or make former friends cut you out of their lives. And I have no doubt that the people on the other side of this argument would welcome me with open arms, because what church doesn't love a former non believer who has seen the light?

The fact that so many people, including people I love and respect, don't agree with me, is what makes me think I am probably right. Because I would rather agree with them.

And I would rather find out that women and children haven't actually been harmed, that I fell for a load of propaganda, and that everything is actually fine.

The few conversations I’ve had about all this with other people have honestly been an eye opener. You think someone is intelligent, but then they come out with some outrageous stuff.

I have a lovely friend who is highly-educated, worked very hard to own her own home, works in head office of a major company, but when we were discussing the transgender movement, she didn’t actually know that your sex is actually in your DNA. I gave an example of an episode of Silent Witness I remembered from years ago where they were trying to identify a male body severely burnt in a train crash, and the reason they struggled to identify the body was because they identified as female and had changed their documents. My friend had literally no idea that your body in that state would always be identified as your biological sex.

she didn’t feel psychologically safe talking about this

I've heard variations on this so many times. It's mad isn't it? In fact it does suggest people are going "lalala". We can discuss so many terrible things - the holocaust, apartheid, terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East - without feeling "psychologically unsafe".

That and the refusal to read JKR's fairly short essay, makes me think people are too afraid of what they might think if they actually thought about it in detail.

Having said that, I do still have "Am I the baddy" moments on this, when everyone else seems to hold a different opinion.

I'm inherently suspicious of anyone saying that ideas make them feel unsafe and shouldn't be discussed.

The only exception I can really think of is denial of or justification of genocide. I can totally understand how Jewish people would feel unsafe if people started talking about how the Holocaust didn't really happen or Hitler had the right idea, because 6 million of their community were murdered less than 100 years ago and it could happen again under the right (by which I mean wrong) conditions.

But talking about single sex spaces and sports for women, or whether children should really be socially or medically transitioned, clearly does not meet that threshold.

I think the concept of psychological safety has been stolen and mangled by this movement.

In newspeak, it now means 'your points are giving me cognitive dissonance which feels uncomfortable, lalala I can't hear you'.

It's another example of wanting feelings to override facts.

You put this so well.

I'm crap with names but there was a philosopher (Socrates maybe?) who said that a strong argument is still a strong argument even if many disagree with you. (I'm not paraphrasing this well either, maybe someon eelse knows what I mean? )

If you have good arguments, a bunch of people disagreeing without even engaging with you doesn't make you wrong.

Well done for having confidence 👏

If they're so secure in their own position, why wouldn't they want to understand the opposing arguments, so that they are better able to refute them?

Exactly this!

You cannot claim to be to be X if you haven't properly listened to the arguments for, and understood the reasoning behind, the contrary opinion, Y.

Maybe you find it hard to articulate your own opinion - but you'll never be able to do it unless you consider others and are able to contradict them without resorting to "Shuttup!"

Exactly this. If you offered me the opportunity to debate a trans activist on live television I am confident that I could make a compelling argument to support my point of view, without straw manning or name calling, and that I would have a good answer to every single point the other person might make.

I would have nothing to be afraid of other than the possibility of people just calling me a bigot without listening to a word I had said.

Can the other side really say the same?

I don’t understand it either, that my views on this one issue seem so opposite to the left policies I’ve connected with all my life. I am quite sure, sadly, that I would have followed suit had I not applied my own critical thinking after reading JKR as I wondered what all the fuss was about. I can see how it happens. I might well have got there anyway without JKR but was glad I looked into it more and made my own mind up.

For me, JKR's intervention was what made me apply the Occam's Razor principle.

Which is more likely?

The world's best loved children's author, lifelong Labour supporter and feminist, who has consistently been on the "progressive" side of every political argument, wrote a series of books with a strong anti bullying and bigotry theme and has given countless millions to charitable causes, has suddenly been radicalised by the same religious conservatives who tried to ban her books in the 1990s into hating an oppressed and vulnerable minority.

Or... There's more to it and maybe we should listen to her point of view.

OP, just wanted to say well done on your integrity, patience on the face of your former group's fingers in ears stance, and righful anger at their lack of will to understand.

On the issue of 'psychological safety', I find myslef getting impatient at its very mention. My ears pick up and my reaction is almost always 'that phrase does not meant what you think it means!!'

I watched a youtube video recently by a transman who was stating that "JK Rowling is causing serious violence to poor transwomen who are just trying to live their lives in peace" etc, all the comments were in support of this and how horrible she is/how bigoted/how transphobic. I mean...they were literally defending the feelings of convicted rapists and paedophiles because THAT'S what matter more than female safety. It would be laughable if it wasn;t as serious as a heart attack.

👏👏👏
JKR's latest:

'I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.

I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn't more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn't stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she's done either of those things, or ever wants to.

Womanhood isn't a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.

Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say 'I thought you didn't want to be defined by your biology,' it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don't want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It's one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don't and can't, because we belong to our sex class.

Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.

I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.'

I hope the woman who was raped and impregnated while in prison sues the Californian state for the full cost of raising that child, including university fees and living costs, and also healthcare for both of them including an amount to reflect the inevitable damage done to the mother’s body by the pregnancy, plus an amount for childcare and another amount reflecting the woman’s reduced career choices.

If I was her lawyer I’d be suing for a very very high amount.

JKR is utterly epic.

OP, I'm sorry your former friend wasn't prepared to have civilised discussion. That's on her, not on you - which you know.

As for the knowing whether you're right or not... Having 'am I the baddy' moments is a good thing, because it keeps your mind open to new evidence. But many people hate doubt, and hate going against the herd.

I suspect there will be a lot of reverse ferreting in a few years time.

Yep. I'm not the one who isn't having any "am I the baddie?" moments.

When she said that the fact that 50 intelligent women disagree with me and that should tell me that I am wrong, that if I listen to them I might learn something, I could have cried.

Does she seriously think I have not considered their point of view? Does she not understand how much I would prefer them to be right, how much easier and more comfortable it would be for me to agree with them?

The fact that I have examined their point of view from every angle, over and over again, trying in vain to find the key thing that I have been missing which explains why I have got it wrong, and I still can't find any way to agree with it, and that I am even less convinced by their position than I was when I started trying to understand it, should tell HER something.

I did listen to them, and all I learned was that they have no idea who they're even vilifying or what their arguments actually are, and they don't want to know. "Bigot this, TERF that, my sister is trans" is all they've got.

She was personally offended about the fact that I described her friends' behaviour as pathetic.

But frankly I think it's far more offensive that she thinks I'm just sticking my fingers in my ears and refusing to listen to her friends' arguments because I'm determined to hate trans people.

I am impressed and inspired, @MissScarletInTheBallroom, by your writing clarity and calmness in the face of such exasperating provocation. I usually descend into “WTAF?!!” which probably doesn’t convince as many bystanders.

How asinine their arguments are, though! 50 intelligent priests disagreed with Galileo, yet the earth still goes round the sun.

I am critical of gender ideology precisely because I am a socialist. Which simply means I would like to improve the Material conditions of the working people. Class is the last taboo.
I don't see how anyone who spends their time and energy arguing about pink 🧠 and gendered souls can call themselves a socialist. They should start another party to promote these metaphysical ideas.

Just one more time this

Yes, I agree. These are all well educated, privileged women. I'm not aware of anyone in the group who didn't go to college, for example, and the only ones who seem to be renters live in expensive parts of major cities. There's quite a lot of conspicuous consumerism in the group. And of course, America is the ultimate capitalist society. They bemoan their lack of abortion rights and maternity leave and the fucked up nature of their healthcare system, but ultimately they are a part of that system and that culture. They'd probably consider the Tories to be quite socialist.

They dismiss JKR as a billionaire who punches down on vulnerable people, but I doubt whether any of them has ever experienced the kind of poverty and precariousness that she did as a single mum on benefits who had left an abusive marriage.

Perhaps if American feminism was a bit less Judith Butler and a bit more JK Rowling, women there would have more rights.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom just wanted to say how much I admire your bravery and eloquence.

I actually think that what you say about American political tribalism holds true for the UK side of the argument too, at least in the sense that being pro-trans is seen as the 'kind' stance to take.

I'm very fortunate with my friends that the vast majority are able to see the reality of the TRA arguments. Not so fortunate with my close family. I would love to have an ounce of your ability to argue calmly and logically, I just end up in a hot, angry mess if I try to articulate my feelings.

Yesterday I had a chat with one of my two best friends about this.

One of the two insists that TWAW. She's 100% coming at it from a "be kind" perspective and probably also the perspective that she works in a captured sector and doesn't want to have to contemplate the consequences for her of deciding not to believe in this stuff. But she knows my views and we generally just agree to disagree.

The other is a funny one. Pretty sure she doesn't believe that TWAW but she also really doesn't care about single sex spaces or sports and sometimes I find her quite lacking in empathy when I talk about women who need them. I think her position is less that trans women should be able to self ID into those spaces and more that she doesn't really see why we need them. So anyway, she's not team trans but she's not really team TERF either. Yesterday I told her about getting kicked out of my parenting group and her response was that they are dickheads and JKR is "superb".