Does JK Rowling not realize...

[lebateleur]

...that many, many, many of the transphobic comrades in arms who share her Big Thoughts^TM on the immutability of sex also hold very specific attitudes about the immorality of:

• single motherhood,
• working mothers,
• women's participation in public spaces,
• social programs, and
• family planning

among others? Setting aside the odiousness of her recent statements for their own sake, it's amazing to me that she's oblivious to the fact, from a completely self-interested standpoint, the people who share these views on sex and gender are not her friends.

To inject some levity into the situation, the current wank at least gave us this from Forbes, whose author seems as upset that HP fans are Interrogating This Text From The Wrong Perspective as he is by Rowling's bullshittery.

Never change, Fandom.

これで以上です。

Comments

[pauraque]

Looking for consistency, logic, or even practical self-interest in bigotry is usually pointless, I'm afraid. Bigots can always find some way to dismiss any inconvenient facts which threaten their irrational beliefs.

[lebateleur]

None of what you point out above should surprise me anymore, and yet it still does...perhaps because "But what about my narrow self-interest!?!?" seems to be what pretty much every bigot's complaints ultimately reduce down to.

[pauraque]

"But what about my narrow self-interest!?!?" seems to be what pretty much every bigot's complaints ultimately reduce down to.

It does seem like that sometimes, yet I think often the hate is what they're really prioritizing, and any potential benefit to themselves is weirdly secondary? Bigotry definitely maintains privilege, don't get me wrong. But it's not uncommon to see people doing what JKR is doing, jeopardizing their own reputation and career for the sake of spewing hate when it would clearly be in their own best interests to keep their mouths shut. The hate is primary (or perhaps becomes primary over time, as bigots reinforce their own beliefs) even when it no longer serves any selfish purpose.

[lebateleur]

Totally agree with you here. The hate is also deeply self-interested. It's much easier to say "God hates XYZ!" or "XYZ is wrong because: science!" than it is to admit that:
a) XYZ frightens you,
b) you don't know why, and
c) there's no reason to be frightened of XYZ to begin with.

[lirazel]

It always comes back to fear, doesn't it? Fear really is the opposite of love. I don't know that I'm a Christian anymore, but the bits about there being no fear in love and love casting out fear still really speak to me.

[lirazel]

The hate is primary (or perhaps becomes primary over time, as bigots reinforce their own beliefs)

I think this is a really good insight. That the hate becomes primary over time. That the hate--whatever it was initially rooted in--inevitably takes over and can choke the life out of even self-interest.

[lirazel]

I mean, you are completely right that the majority of fiercely anti-trans people are socially/religiously conservative, but I think JKR particularly is pulling her views from the radfem terfs and probably doesn't even think about the people who are against all those things you list. I really don't think that radfem terfs acknowledge that their views are in line with the right on so many topics.

whose author seems as upset that HP fans are Interrogating This Text From The Wrong Perspective as he is by Rowling's bullshittery.

It seriously made me laugh so much when he sounded so offended about fans searching for plot holes! How dare they!

[lebateleur]

I really don't think that radfem terfs acknowledge that their views are in line with the right on so many topics.
Radical feminism strikes me in many ways as social conservatism for atheists; although it doesn't try to justify it through religious means, it comes to a lot of the same conclusions about how society should be ordered.

It seriously made me laugh so much when he sounded so offended about fans searching for plot holes! How dare they!
And yet also somehow not critical enough! Otherwise fans would never sort RL people into Hogwarts houses!

[lirazel]

The thing about this kind of radfem thinking is that I understand how they got there. The insistence that our bodies determine how we're treated by the world and women really do experience profound oppression because of how we're treated is...true. And I can see how that turns into "therefore gender is a concrete thing" which then means defining it in a concrete way which then necessitates the rejection of trans people and their identities which then starts to view trans identities as an enemy in the radfem's battle to get the world to admit that gender really, really does affect how women are treated. Like, I think they end up at a completely wrong place, but it's weird being able to understand how they got there, you know? And because they start out at such a far remove from other forms of social conservatism--they start out with "Women are oppressed and this is bad," which social conservatism would reject--they don't realize that they ended up in exactly the same place as the people they initially viewed as enemies. It would be the tragic kind of funny if they weren't hurting so many people in the process.

[lebateleur]

And even those "concrete" criteria become very slippery once you try to explicitly define them! At various points in my life, people and even software have told me that I'm not sufficiently feminine because of my hair, clothing, and cosmetic choices; emotional reactions, preferences (I would rather tromp around in the woods than go shopping), and physical traits (I have to select "adult male voice" to get Rosetta Stone's speech recognition to register that I'm talking). If "XX genotype = woman" how can anything that I, with my XX genotype, do not be feminine? And if a hypothetical transwoman is better than me at expressing "inherently feminine" traits or behaviors, how can she not be a woman? It really gets to what you were talking about in your DW about the limitations of categorization and classification schemas, and the contexts in which they cease to be useful.

"Women are oppressed and this is bad," which social conservatism would reject
Or at least attempt (and here we go again with definitions) to redefine: "Women are oppressed by society's expectations that they deny their innate femininity and act like men" by taking "men's" jobs, having "male" attitudes toward relationships, expressing "masculine" emotions and behaviors, etc. etc...

ETA: Also, the disconnect/willful ignorance of radfems pointing out that "bodies determine how we're treated by the world and women really do experience profound oppression because of how we're treated" while using transpeople's bodies as an excuse to oppress and mistreat them is just...akdas;fjdas!!

I mean, I know this isn't news to you or anyone who's reading this post and its comments, but as I said to pauraque above, it still surprises me.

[lirazel]

Oh, absolutely! And that stuff is all before you even bring the undeniable existence of intersex people into the conversation. The chromosome argument in itself is exhausting!

And yes, as I started to move out of the evangelical bubble I grew up in, I started to find it really hilarious that they were insisting that gender and sex are a) the same thing and b) absolute, and yet were terrified that men weren't acting masculine enough and women weren't being feminine enough. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

while using transpeople's bodies as an excuse to oppress and mistreat them is just...akdas;fjdas!!

I KNOOOOOW. It's wild how they can start out in one place and end up arguing the opposite!

[pauraque]

And yet, there is also a longstanding thread of TERF discourse that uses the exact opposite starting point, arguing that inherent gender does not exist in any way other than as a patriarchal social construct, and still manages to arrive at the conclusion that trans people are invalid (because we feel an inherent inner sense of gender other than the one socially assigned to us, which threatens their ideology that inborn gender identity isn't supposed to exist).

Basically, I think what's really going on here is that any train of thought can be twisted to support hateful beliefs if someone is determined to make it do so. Nobody is actually coming to transphobia through logic, though they may present it that way, and may even believe it themselves.

[lirazel]

I didn't know that! I didn't know that some of them still see gender as a construct but manage to become anti-trans people anyway!

Basically, I think what's really going on here is that any train of thought can be twisted to support hateful beliefs if someone is determined to make it do so.

I think you're completely right about that.

[lebateleur]

arguing that inherent gender does not exist in any way other than as a patriarchal social construct, and still manages to arrive at the conclusion that trans people are invalid (because we feel an inherent inner sense of gender other than the one socially assigned to us
Luckily(?) I have not encountered this argument in the wild. But of course it would exist. Of course. Because, as you say, logic doesn't have a role to play here.

[enemytosleep]

All she has to do is ... not tweet? And the fact that she chose to go in on this (again) this week is also somewhat telling.

[lebateleur]

Right!? The silver lining, I suppose, is that at least when Rowling et al. make their views public, the public is able to know them for who they are.

[enemytosleep]

J.K. Rowling *sees Black Lives Matter posts about POC transwomen deserving rights and protections and is triggered* MUST TWEET NOW. Must bring the attention back to me! Though to be fair I was expecting her to tweet an awful Potter Fact about black wizards this month. I suppose there is still time for that.

[lebateleur]

Though to be fair I was expecting her to tweet an awful Potter Fact about black wizards this month.
And what a world, in which that, for a time, seemed like it would be the probable rancid communique.

If she had any PR or self-preservation savvy, she'd put the smartphone down for awhile, but given what we've already seen...

[momijizukamori]

Honestly some of the TERF/radfem groups have EXPLICITLY allied themselves with the Christian right because apparently men/trans people/the Wrong Queers are worse than losing rights for women. I guess the idea is that once they have successfully pushed out all the Undesirables from The Movement they'll be invulnerable and perfectly poised to take on the patriarchy or something but who the fuck knows.

[lebateleur]

some of the TERF/radfem groups have EXPLICITLY allied themselves with the Christian right
That's scary. It's amazing that they'd come to that conclusion versus the seemingly logical and self-apparent one: the Christian right thinks of you as useful tools and will go after you as soon as you've served their purpose. Again, these people are not your friends.