Vindicated or Condemned? The Verdict of JK Rowling’s Podcast

Following the release of her final episode in her recent podcast series, The Witch Trials of JK Rowling, the long awaited verdict of Rowling’s “trial” has arrived. Now that everything has been laid on the table, the ultimate question lingers: did JK Rowling succeed in evading being burned at the stake, or condemn her legacy to be engulfed in flames? For those who listened to respond, they assuredly walked away having confirmed the latter. However, for those who listened to understand, Joanne Rowling, unlike the wrongly accused women in 17th century Salem, escaped the vitriolic flame. And let me explain why..

At the outset of the podcast and in past interviews, Rowling has repeatedly affirmed her advocacy for feminism is inclusive of trans-women. She has never retracted or mitigated this statement. She has never wavered in her belief that trans people are entitled to anti-discrimination laws that bestow protection and safety in their workplaces, public accommodations, and love lives. These beliefs of hers, particularly the first aforementioned, have ironically put her at odds with fellow notable figures deemed as “TERFs.” That is, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Kathleen Stock, a former professor at the University of Sussex and notable public figure in the debate, shares a good overlap in beliefs with Rowling. Though, one core belief where Rowling differs from Stock is her belief that trans-women should be welcomed into the feminism movement. Stock on the other hand, has vehemently repeated that such a stance is impossible to reconcile. Where Stock has denied that gender and sex cannot be mutually exclusive, Rowling holds the belief that gender is relatively socially constructed, understanding the two elements can operate independently from one another. Despite repeated good-faith efforts to exhibit her sincere belief in trans-advocacy, her association with TERFs is one that has yet to be absolved.

“TERF” has become a label that has commandeered the vernacular of many trans “activists” who hear an opinion of the slightest deviation from their own. But this word carries more than just a pseudo-activist connotation. It largely functions as a mechanism for shutting down any possibility to evaluate another’s beliefs from an objective desire to understand. As for having a dialogue, even ones that may assuage the less accepting to greater understanding and sympathy, forget about it. Swaths of trans-activists have deemed that even a whiff of conversation or debate perpetuates transphobia itself. Of course, there are undoubtedly feminists who ardently oppose including trans-women in any women rights debate. And to those women I say: you are wrong and your exclusion is misguided. Trans-women are women and they contribute to the comforting and grounding warmth feminist spaces embody. This perspective is one shared by Rowling herself, per her own admission. So why does her “TERF” label persist like a stubborn stain? This is due to an alarming, absolutist logic that is taking the trans-activism movement, and even Liberal spaces generally, by storm.

I want to dissect this emerging and particularly formidable phenomena that is festering within my cherished Liberal community. It’s a phenomena I call “ideological absolutism”. A belief system that scowls and punitively ostracizes any member whose views on trans-rights isn’t 100% compatible with the idealized standard. For those who don’t know, the idealized standard consists of a number of unbreakable vows. Namely, blind adoption of dominant held trans-advocacy positions, unquestionable conformity to prescribed advocate behaviors, and a commitment to refuse any good-faith debate that addresses the movement’s groupthink. But these prerequisites for achieving the idealized standard are not random. They are not summoned from thin air. They are the prerequisites because they represent a solemn vow to solely engage in pre-approved mentalities by what can only be the perfect trans-advocate. To embody anything less demonstrates a clear deficit in your support for the trans community. Regardless of the number of boxes you check off, should you leave one blank, under ideological absolutism, you represent an intolerable nuance to a movement whose existence survives on black-and-white logic. In an active effort to refuse acknowledging this aspect of human nature, it casts you out. Presumably to a realm labeled “TERFland” or something of that elk. But who can honestly point me in the direction of the perfect trans advocate? For those who’ve obtained the idealized standard, the swiftness of a “TERF” branding is justified because the bar for being a perfect trans activist is so low. In the words of Twitter commenters, “you can just not be transphobic.” But what if the arms of a layperson’s understanding cannot reach this allegedly low-hanging bar? Well, that conundrum breeds a whole new environment. An environment of fear that tolerates nothing less than perfection.

One of the incontestable points Rowling highlighted in her podcast was her concern for women, and others, fearing to voice their understanding around transgenderism and gender identity. This is because it’s human nature to conceal an opinion that might not satiate the dominant viewpoint’s appetite. No one wants to confess ignorance if they can help it. But it’s not just fear of appearing ignorant or worse, transphobic, that keeps well-meaning minds silent. There’s a far more nefarious element that Rowling called out that aids in its hibernation. That element is the numerous public condemnations of those who admitted their deviation from the idealized standard. Such condemnations have resulted in job terminations, alleged anti-discrimination violations, and mental health crises. One of the most notable figures in the town square of cancellation was Maya Forstater, a British tax advisor whose employment was terminated upon confessing her views departed from the idealized standard. As you’ve likely guessed, her tweets rejected the notion that men and women can transition to another sex. Her tweets were ultimately found to be protected by British free speech laws, but only after overturning a lower employment tribunal’s ruling. In their examination, the initial tribunal found her termination was justified as her speech did not implicate free speech protections. The reason the court gave: her speech was directly at odds with what it considered “elements of human dignity and respect.” As someone who’s about to be an attorney in a few months time, this reasoning (generous term), shook me to my core. This tribunal, whilst acting in a legal capacity, allowed the vitriol of a well-intentioned advocacy movement, supplant its legal obligation to render objective, law interpreting analysis in rendering a decision that would have tangible affects on one of its citizen’s lives. Personally, I could never imagine Maya and myself grabbing lunch or gabbing over a coffee. But i’m objective and mature enough to tolerate her being in the same office if we were colleagues. Many trans-activists would surely note that it’s easier to take such a stance if one is not trans. However, that observation is immaterial to the point. Which is that even if Maya were a raging homophobe, and believed men who are attracted to men are in need of psychiatric guidance, I would still remain firm in my belief she’s entitled to her employment absent a justified reason (e.g. lack of satisfactory performance). As a gay man, I just simply wouldn’t fuck with her.

It is this embedded element of ideological absolutism that has festered to a point of near omnipotence. If the main component of a movement’s belief system is dependent on the trepidation of those less knowledgeable, a wiser being might suggest some rebranding.

One last reason amongst trans advocates in maintaining Rowling’s TERF label is their view her words harm, and even kill, young trans-people. This is not a hyperbole, but their sincerely held belief. In the fifth episode of the podcast, Rowling made a persuasive counter to dispel this notion. She portrayed the ludicrousness of this view by drawing a parallel between the allegation and the tragic, real instances of violence against the trans community. Rowling explained “in order for this to contain a shred of truth, a person who hears me repeatedly say I believe trans-women should be addressed as women, should be protected, and I will always stand with them, thinks to themselves, god JK Rowing is right…I cannot stand trans-people. I better go out into the world and assault or kill them.” You do not need to have a Ph.D in analysis to see the this alleged connection is clawing for breath it’s so asphyxiated. In view of this specific allegation, I find solace in one of the quotes from my most beloved YouTuber, Contrapoints, from her “Cancelling” video essay, “not understanding someone is not the same thing as wanting them dead.” Rowling may not display every belief from the trans-community’s perspective, but I cannot see from an objective viewpoint that she is the enemy that her brand suggests. Yes, the trans-community is correct that some of her statements delineate from dominant trans-advocacy views. For a good portion of the trans-community, her stances on 14-year olds not being mature enough to grapple with the consequences of transitioning, or her avid opposition to the UK’s self-identification laws on gender surely create justified friction. I completely acknowledge and appreciate that struggle. But I would propose that’s less on the mark as to whether she detests and fears (remember what -phobia means) the trans-community, and more so related to premature medical decisions.

Now some may say, and my treasured icon Natalie Wynn (i.e. Contrapoints) has expressed as much in her 2021 video essay critiquing Rowling, is that such secondary beliefs perpetuate indirect transphobia. This is due to the consequential affects that Rowling’s more back-handed positions create. And while I’m aware that a string of positions can connect to illustrate a more uniform belief, affirming or oppositional in its nature, such strenuous connections are likely found true more often in black and white personalities. And given how nuanced Rowling has been in her feminism, coupled with her various trans affirming positions, you could not have picked a worse public figure to embody the concept of a TERF. However, what is indisputable is the recitals of her beliefs on trans-people and their journeys is littered with the understanding, compassion, and acceptance any trans-ally should embody.

As for me, I believe trans-women are women and trans-men are men, that gender is very much a socially constructed element of personhood, and the feminism movement is bolstered by the inclusion of trans-women. I also support and adore JK Rowling and Harry Potter, and believe nuance is an essential ingredient to the formation of any informed belief. So…can someone tell me with no degree of doubt, am I transphobic?

A heart-felt thank you for taking the time to read.