Beneath contempt
Jennifer O’Connell at the Irish Times joins the crowd throwing mud at JK Rowling.
When we are most certain is the point at which we should most question ourselves, remarks JK Rowling sensibly in a new podcast series, The Witch Trials of JK Rowling. For a moment, she seems to be experiencing a revelation about her own role in the events of the past few years. But no: she is referring only to those who challenge her. After four years of criticism, online fury, abuse, threats of violence, and even book burnings, her faith in her own position is undimmed. “I believe absolutely that there is something dangerous about this movement, and it must be challenged.”
Yes, and? Jennifer O’Connell seems to have plenty of faith in her own position here. Are we not allowed to have firm opinions now? Do we have to be “I just don’t know” on all subjects?
And when it comes to trans ideology…we have a mountain of evidence, that grows by the minute, of the frenzied emotionalism and stark absence of critical thinking that characterize it. Trans ideology is a hot mess, so why are we under pressure to go all self-doubting on the subject? Why not tell the ideologues to do some self-doubting? Why are the trans boosters allowed to be as dogmatic as Savonarola while we are told to be hesitant and racked with doubt?
The “movement” to which she is referring is one in support of equal rights for trans people.
Like hell it is. It’s a movement demanding special rights for trans people, bizarre unworkable unjust pseudo-rights. It’s a movement that orders women to accept men as women in all circumstances on demand and without hesitation or protest. That’s not “equal rights”; that’s demolition of women’s rights.
In 2019 and again in 2020, Rowling launched herself confidently into this fractious, emotive debate with a series of tweets that precipitated the onslaught she sees as a witch-hunt.
Sneer sneer. How dare she utter her opinion on the subject? Same way Jennifer O’Connell does; same way men who call themselves women do, except that she is far more thoughtful and polite.
In the podcast series – thoughtfully hosted by Megan Phelps-Roper, a recovering member of the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church and granddaughter of its former leader, the late Fred Phelps – Rowling attempts to explain why she chose to make this battle over the rights of an oppressed minority her life’s work.
Her life’s work? I think her life’s work mostly involves writing, and raising her kids, and sundry charities. Also, at this point, in what sense are trans people an oppressed minority?
She is candid about her experience of being in an abusive relationship and the toll that speaking out has taken. She describes how frightening it was to have her address published online. She makes a convincing case that backlashes against individual women online are meant as a warning to all women.
But what distinguishes her from other victims of online witch-hunts is that Rowling waded into this intentionally.
Jeezus. “The slut asked for it.” How dare she have her own (feminist) opinion. How dare she go public with her opinion. How dare she “wade into” a public debate. “The dangerous godless slutty whore asked for the punishment.”
Listening to her explain her position offers an insight into the way that the online world has eroded our ability to tease out complex issues, to explore nuance and to disagree.
Yo, look in the mirror, chum. Look at yourself berating a feminist woman for going public with her opinion. Look at yourself protecting men against these hulking bullying women. Look in the fucking mirror.
“The “movement” to which she is referring is one in support of equal rights for trans people. ”
So where were the “equal rights” aspect in the cases of Barbie Kardashian and Adam Graham / Isla Bryson ? Those were just men identifying as women in order to to be in a superior position to natal women, and thus brutalize natal women.
Once again for the hard-of-thinking in the back:
That hit-piece is so frustrating. Still, if it persuades more people to listen to the Witch Trials, it’s a net win.
What would Ms. O’Connell say if someone were to show her this post?
“the frenzied emotionalism and stark absence of critical thinking that characterize it.”
Yes, yes. Well put OB. Trans is MAGA of the left.
Mike @4 Also a good one. The zealotry is very similar.
Hard to imagine why, “after four years of criticism, online fury, abuse, threats of violence, and even book burnings,” she would find the movement dangerous.
It’s worth remembering that the following tweet is the entire reason why JKR was castigated and called a nazi, transphobe, bigot, etc. etc.
“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”
In The Silkworm a Robert Galbraith novel, Rowling writes the Pippa character quite sympathetically. Her characters refer to him with women’s pronouns. There was such a hue and cry about her character Dennis Reeder, who wasn’t trans, but neglect to mention Pippa. So, either she peaked after writing The Silkworm or she’s never been hateful towards anyone claiming to be trans.
She’s been firm in support of women, for which she must pay.
Imagine writing a sentence like this…
…and meaning it as a criticism of Rowling’s alleged stubbornness rather than of her opponents’ behavior.
(The podcast is very well-done and evenhanded, by the way.)
Rowling’s position is that sex is real and that the rights of women and girls are worthy of, and in need of respect and defence. Is there now some reason that she should abandon this position? Is she wrong to believe these things? If so, why and how is that the case? If anything, her experience of these last few years (her “lived experience” I daresay), would only reinforce, rather than weaken her beliefs, and rightly so. O’Connell is dismayed that Rowling has not caved in to the bullying and intimidation with which the former is clearly aligning herself with this piece. Rowling does not love Big Brother.
Here again we see the inherent narcissism and dishonesty of trans activism in play. Rowling’s comments have been explicitly pro-women. The battle she’s fighting is for the rights of women and girls; see above. But women are not allowed to have their own needs and interests. We are told that there is “No conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights.” Anyone claiming that there is only wants to harm trans people: there can be no other reason, because NO DEBATE! Women’s rights are only a dog whistle. Women don’t really need or want single-sex prisons, hospital wards, rape crisis centers, toilet and changing facilities, sports teams, or short lists. Nope. Not at all. The only women agitating for these absolutely unnecessary and unwanted things are obviously racist, fascist, TERF bigots. One’s inability to see this means one is likely one of these TERF bigots as well, and at risk of being treated as such. Whether she knows it or not, O’Connell is part of this self-righteous, inherently misogynistic tradition of denying the needs and rights of women. As others have been pointing out for some time, if the rights of women are “anti-trans,” then trans “rights” are anti-woman. Trans demands can only be fulfilled at the expense of the health, safety and dignity of women. Rowling knows this. It is shameful that O’Connell does not.
Goddamn right she did. O’Connell is correct that she didn’t have to do this. Rowling could have sat back and left the fight to others. But, it is entirely to her credit that she did not, and that she stood up for the rights of women and girls. She read that warning correctly, and decided to fight against it. Imagine if she had not. Imagine how much worse things would have been if she’d taken the easy road, heeded that warning, and stayed quiet; or worse, if she’d joined in against women, like so many others, including O’Connell here.
Rowling knew that her position gave her a degree of protection and insulation that most other women do not have. But only a degree. I’m sure she had few illusions as to what she was doing; she saw what was happening, and yet still felt compelled to speak out. But not without risk. She willingly drew the hatred and hostility on herself, lifting, to some extent, the threat to other, more vulnerable women, and offering an example of principled resistance to violations of women’s boundaries. She offered herself as a scapegoat and target, showing the ugliness and ruthlessness of her opponents. When she refused to recant, or back down, or shut up, they turned Rowling into an all-powerful, Soros-like boogeyman for the transactivist set, someone whose every utterance killed trans kids by the score, and who was plotting and financing trans genocide. Fortunately, Rowling is too big to cancel, and she leveraged that power and privilege to fight for all women, even O’connell, even though she would choke on the words if she were to admit it.
Does O’Connell not see that trans activists were also free agents in this conflict? Did they cross no lines in their statements? Or were they correct and innocent in their reflexive issuing of death and rape threats, the accusations and smearing, the lies and calumny? Maybe they were simply so carried away by their passion that they couldn’t help themselves? No, those were choices too. How unintentionally prescient that Rowling says through Dumbledore “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” And, “Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.” She chose well. She chose right. All Rowling did was say “Yes” to women, and “No” to men. Trans activists did all the rest. Their response simply proved Rowling’s point: to paraphrase Lewis’s Law, the reaction to statements in favour of women’s rights proves why we need women’s rights, undoubtedly peaking many, many people. That Rowling’s wealth and privilege did not lull her into a complacent passivity and inaction is a testament to her character. In that sense, this is very much “her life’s work,” of which she can be justifiably proud.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Beneath […]
No, she commented thoughtfully
Commenting thoughtfully is kryptonite to trans ideology. No thinking allowed.