Disruptive Dissertation: '3rd Anniversary of Rowling’s Pledge for Trans Rights': Don't read the comments

Thursday, June 8, 2023

'3rd Anniversary of Rowling’s Pledge for Trans Rights': Don't read the comments

Please read my article "On the 3rd Anniversary of J.K. Rowling’s Pledge for Trans Rights". It's a 6-minute read on Medium.

ostrich looks over shoulder of guy reading newspaper

In response to this article, I received some comments, which I've hidden on the article. Generally, the reason I've hidden these comments is to avoid people using my article comments as a space for workshopping transphobic rhetoric. However, I've preserved the hidden comments in screenshots here (minus usernames), as I'm studying the patterns.

What we see in people defending their anti-transgender side against others' assessment that they're transphobic is the descent into various competing definitions of transphobia:

Extreme antipathy to trans people as a group would be transphobia, but this example demonstrates only mild antipathy to trans people as a group
This example demonstrates no antipathy whatsoever against trans people in general, but simply opposition to some people, actions, etc.
(Not shown explicitly here, but I think it's implicit, and is something I've seen elsewhere): As long as you give a reason for your political opposition, you're not a bigot
Antipathy is transphobia, but we can never know someone else's feelings, so no one can ever call anyone else transphobic

M.S. claims that Rowling doesn't have personal "prejudice" or "hate" yet. She's merely spent the past three years expressing personal "discomfort" — in hundreds of tweets and a seven-hour podcast, you see.

This commenter's approach is to look at Rowling's ongoing, organized campaign to foment prejudice and hate among 14 million Twitter followers and to label it as her personal discomfort with a certain group of people, which Rowling must be allowed to constantly air without any criticism, lest she become worse.

There is discomfort, there is prejudice, and there is hatred. If we don't allow people to address discomfort, then discomfort becomes prejudice and prejudice becomes hatred. There needs to be a place for people to address discomfort.

J., by contrast, suggests Rowling isn't even personally uncomfortable around trans people. She's actually quite "accepting" of them, you see. Which is perhaps trans people's only "goal" — for individuals to privately feel "accepting" of us. What Rowling opposes so vigorously are the "tactics" of pro-trans activists. And so, you see, Rowling can make of herself a fountain of anti-transgender statements, as long as she claims she's opposing political ideology and tactics rather than trans people's existence. B. A. replies suggesting that one is transphobic only if one "hates trans people or considers them perverse," but perhaps not if one takes political positions against trans people that make their lives difficult (be it through mere incovenience or outright persecution).

They also share the sentiment that Rowling is "rich and powerful" and thus can tweet without fear.

J. adds that no one can "outwit" her on Twitter, a judgment that I believe exists in some tension with the sentiment that one has to be a billionaire to be able to tweet freely and safely.

J. said: Except...none of the quotes you posted are actually transphobic.
You can be accepting of trans people (which is the goal yes?) and abhorrent about trans activism tactics (which is not the same as transphobia). These are not mutually exclusive. B. A. replied: True. Unlike you and me she is rich and powerful enough to write whatever she thinks yet despite some provocation she doesn't say she hates trans people or considers them perverse. And J. replied: It is a shame that somebody needs to be rich and powerful in order to speak truth without fear of having their life ruined. But such is life. One other asset she has, is she's an excellent writer. Nobody is going to outwit JK Rowling on Twitter, and it is amusing to watch delusional and sanctimonious idiots try.

B.A. left their own comment implying that a "generallised mild dislike of Trans people" would not itself be transphobia; transphobia, I suppose, would be an intense dislike of trans people as a group? Hard to tell.

Anyhow, B.A. says that Rowling has received "death threats," so what Rowling's statements ought to be evaluated for is not what they say but how they are said. Rowling expresses herself with "restraint," and for that, B.A. commends her. But what, I wonder, does B.A. believe would be the unrestrained version of Rowling's words?

What I'm getting at here is that transphobes like to say that they award the Badge of Non-transphobia for playing the game of saying extremely transphobic things in a restrained, civil, indoor voice.

B.A. is also saying that the Nazis were on the trans side at Keen's rally, and if the Nazis were on Keen's side at the rally, well, the Nazis changed sides several days later and decided they really were on the trans side after all.

I've read this article and still not found evidence of JK Rowlings transphobia. Or even a generallised mild dislike of Trans people. Admittedly t may exist but this article shows restraint by someone who as experienced death threats.
The author is stretching evidence to make an article. I'm not well informed on the subject but living in Auckland NZ I can assure all readers that the nazis and fascists who attended Kellie-Jay Keen's attempted public meeting in a park in Auckland were definitely not supporting her. Terrifying and covering her with tomato soup yes, allowing her to speak no. There may be evidence that the fascists supported her in Melbourne but it has benn reported as guilt by association but definitely a few days later in NZ the fascists were on the side of the trans lobby (not the necessarily the same as trans people) and they were not just hanging around but were responsible for a violent frenzied mob.

C.D. said that Rowling's pledge to march with trans people derived from a sentiment she still holds and that the only reason she hasn't marched for trans rights is that trans people irrationally hate her, and so she wouldn't be safe in a crowd of trans people.

That was before she was threatened with death and rape. There wouldn't be enough security to keep her safe at a trans rights march.

N. said "phobia is in the eye of the beholder," suggesting that, no matter how overtly hateful or harmful someone's words or actions may be, they will always perceive themselves as non-transphobic, so calling out transphobia is essentially meaningless because all it amounts to is a statement of personal taste that you would like them to stop saying/doing it.