Katie Roche's Blog

In Defence of JK Rowling

It will soon be the anniversary of the release of the first Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. HBO are making a reunion program for the occasion. But the author of the series, JK Rowling will not be taking part. Plus, the actors from the original films have said they will not work with her again. Rowling has also been rejected by the fandom too. Bizarrely, some Harry Potter fans now claim the series has no author. This kind of revulsion is normally reserved for the likes of Gary Glitter or Jimmy Savile. Most of us are aware that Rowling has made some controversial remarks on transgenderism. But does she really deserve to be banished from public life? To answer that question, let’s explore what she’s said.

Rowling first attracted condemnation after tweeting about the Maya Forstater case. If you’re not familiar with the case, I recommend you read my previous articles, Why Maya Forstater Must Win. Even if you Don’t Agree With Her and Maya Forstater Won! After the verdict in the first hearing, Rowling tweeted the following:

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill”.

If believing that sex is real makes Rowling a bigot, then most people are bigots. Sex is a biological fact. Both the law and medicine take the view that sex is immutable. Indeed, Forstater won her appeal on this basis.

A few months later, Rowling made another controversial comment in response to an article entitled: “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. Rowling tweeted:

“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

The liberal media took this as another example of Rowling’s purported transphobia. Defenders of the term “menstruators” say it is more inclusive of transgender men and female nonbinary people who don’t identify as women. But like it or not, everyone who menstruates is biologically female. And only females menstruate. Irrespective of how a person identifies. The other justification is that not all women menstruate, and so “menstruator” isn’t synonymous with women. Proponents claim that by using the term “women”, it implies women who don’t menstruate aren’t real women. Everyone knows not all women menstruate. I’ve never encountered a menopausal woman or any other woman who doesn’t menstruate who feels she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t have periods. Plus, Rowling herself is a middle-aged woman who presumably has gone through menopause. She knows that not all women menstruate.

So, why not use “menstruators” if it’s more inclusive? After all, what’s wrong with trying to make people feel included? The trouble is, calling women “menstruators” is as degrading as calling men “ejaculators”. Or referring to people as “urinators” or “defecators”. Menstruation is an embarrassing subject for many women. It is often exploited for the subjugation of women. In some cultures, women are banished away during their period. And in many parts of the world, women don’t have access to proper menstrual hygiene products. In addition, menstruation has long been used as a justification for women’s lower social status. The myth that fluctuating hormone levels make women too unstable to hold authority has undoubtably held many women back. By denying that menstruation is a woman’s issue, menstruation as a source of sex inequality is overlooked.

Furthermore, we don’t pander this much to others whose bodies differ from the norm. For example, not everyone has natural teeth. But we wouldn’t expect an article on dentistry to refer to the population being served as “dentate people”. Even though we would assume that to be the case. Also, notice that men’s health doesn’t have to be gender neutral. For instance, campaigns on prostate or testicular cancer awareness still use the term “man”. Oddly, there is little concern for transgender women and nonbinary people who feel excluded by the term “man”. Hyper-inclusivity is only required when discussing matters relevant to womanhood.

Rowling has also tweeted about the Scottish police recording rape suspect’s gender identity rather than their biological sex or their legal gender. She tweeted:

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman.”

Rowling is right to raise this issue. There are many problems with letting male rapists self-identify as female. First, for rape victims, it must feel disheartening to learn the man who raped you sees himself as a woman. It adds another layer of difficulty to an already taxing process. A rape victim must court and recount a terrible ordeal in the rapist's presence. She must face cross-examination. And she also knows there’s a good chance the rapist will be found not guilty. But then, she must show respect to the man who violated her. She must refer to “her penis” and to call him “she”. A way for rapists to be a “virtuous victim” and take the focus away from themselves. And to make giving testimony even harder. It could also have an adverse effect on the outcome of the trial. This has happened in other cases. Maria Lachlan was hit by a transgender woman. Lachlan was denied compensation because she refused to use the offender’s preferred pronouns. It’s easy to envision a case where a rape victim uses male pronouns and is then treated as if she is at fault.

Also, what about when transgender rapists are convicted? This brings the issue of putting rapists in women’s only spaces. Look at Karen White. White is a transgender woman who was held in a women’s prison for stabbing an elderly man. However, she had previously been convicted of indecent assault and gross indecency. The victim of these offences was a primary-school aged child. While White was in prison, she committed two further sexual assaults on fellow prisoners. White’s maleness made her a danger to the other prisoners. White had not undergone sex reassignment surgery. And as a male, she is able to physically overpower women with great ease. Both things contributed to her ability to harm other women in prison. Which shows that biological sex matters.

Is anything Rowling said “transphobic”? Based on the public outcry, you’d think she was a huge bigot. Sexism is also an issue here. If Rowling were a man, I doubt she’d face so much condemnation. Rowling isn’t perfect. Nobody is. But Rowling has taken a brave step that has lost her reverence from the fandom. She could have chosen to “be kind”, say nothing and still be loved by the fandom. Instead, she chose to use her platform to raise this key issue. For those who feel the books have been tainted by Rowling’s actions, remember that a key theme of the Harry Potter series is choosing bravery at the expense of approval. Like Harry Potter and many other of the book’s characters so often did, Rowling has chosen the brave option. It’s not surprising that the person who created Harry Potter has acted like her beloved character. For that, she should be applauded.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation to support the site.