JK Rowling and Transphobia: Do Trans Rights Really Compete with Women’s Rights?
Although the storm has started to die down, the past few months have witnessed a back-and-forth spat between critics and defenders of JK Rowling’s outspoken opinions on trans rights.
In June of this year, Rowling followed her Twitter controversy with a blog post that explained her position at greater length. In it, she argued that trans activism is “doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few [movements] before it.” Later, writing under the pen name ‘Robert Galbraith,’ she published a novel in which a cross-dressing serial killer strategically wears feminine clothing for the purpose of lulling unsuspecting women into a false sense of security — and yes, I have read the novel in its entirety, and that is a fair summary of its only gender-queer character, Dennis Creed. As such, it is hard to read Troubled Blood as anything short of a fictional treatise on Rowling’s position that trans inclusion offers “cover to predators.” The implied association between gender-queer identities and violent perpetrators could not be much clearer.
JK Rowling knew that she would be courting controversy with Troubled Blood. As most people with an internet connection are aware, the public backlash was immediate. Some high-profile literary figures, however, quickly came to Rowling’s defense in a letter published by the Times in late September. While the letter’s condemnation of online abuse is hard to argue against, there is an important point to clarify about its accusations of misogyny: is it simply that Rowling’s most aggressive critics have used misogynistic language, or is it that trans activism is inherently misogynistic? Rowling herself seems to be arguing the latter point, but the fact that some of her detractors use misogynistic language does not itself prove that trans rights are somehow anti-woman.
Furthermore, it should be possible to question Rowling’s position without being associated with the most extreme examples of online harassment. Abusive language is rampant on all sides. Nevertheless, it does seem that the Times letter was effective in partially shielding Rowling from direct criticism. Ireland’s The Second Shelf released a letter expressing solidarity with trans and non-binary people, but it neglected to mention Rowling directly. Shortly thereafter, North America’s literary community released a very similar letter that also omitted Rowling’s name.
Why Trans and Non-Binary Solidarity Is not Enough
However much these letters might be praised for their tact, Rowling’s individual contribution to the debate warrants further scrutiny. She has the power to influence public opinion on issues that have very real consequences for one of the most marginalized groups in society, and her commentary is particularly relevant right now: 2020 marks the culmination of a three-year long initiative to reform the UK’s 2004 Gender Recognition Act, at the very same time that Scotland has wrapped up a consultation process over similar proposals. On September 22, the UK’s parliament announced that it had rejected the proposed reforms, while Scotland has indefinitely postponed the official review of its consultation process.
What is the Gender Recognition Act?
The UK’s Gender Recognition Act allows people to change their legal gender (i.e. on their birth certificate), and the proposed reforms were designed to make the application process less intrusive and arduous.
According to “gender critical” feminists (the term that Rowling prefers in place of “terf”), the proposed reforms would erase the concept of sex altogether. These critics rarely, however, bring up specifics about either the current system or the proposed one.
What exactly is the system now, and how was it supposed to change? Under the 2004 Act, someone in the UK applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate must:
- Have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, confirmed by two separate medical reports, one of which must be from the NHS’s Gender Identity Clinic (which currently has a two-year waiting list)
- Have lived in their “acquired” gender for at least two years
- Submit proof of the above (“This might include, for example, documentation displaying the individual’s name and gender marker.”)
- Make a statutory declaration of the intention to live in their “acquired” gender for life
- Receive spousal approval if married
- Present their case before a Gender Recognition Panel, comprised of lawyers, medical doctors, and psychiatrists
- Pay a £140 fee
While the UK’s reform proposal was somewhat vague in its commitment “to make it less intrusive and bureaucratic for trans people to achieve legal recognition of their gender,” it was generally understood that the requirement for two medical reports would be removed along with the fee, and that non-binary identities would be recognized. Instead, the government has agreed to modest changes, the biggest being the plan to open three new gender clinics and move the application process online.
The Scottish government’s as-yet undecided proposal has more precise goals than were outlined by the UK government. Under the Scottish reforms, the applicant would have to:
- Live in their self-identified gender for three months before applying
- Submit to an additional 3-month period of reflection before the application is finalized
- Make a solemn statutory declaration that they identify with their “acquired” gender and intend to continue living in it permanently
- Be aware that in addition to the existing law defining a false statutory declaration as a criminal offence, a new offence of false application would take effect together with the other proposed reforms (the maximum penalty associated with each offense is a a two-year prison sentence)
This is what is meant by a “self-identification” policy. The proposed Scottish reforms do not include provisions for non-binary identities, which the government explained would require more extensive consideration.
What Does All of This Have to Do with Rowling?
Rowling herself has decided that these reforms are very much her business. She directly comments on Scotland’s proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act in her June blog post, with the author implying that any man intent on attacking women might exploit the new policy:
“On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media […] I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop.”
Rowling is flipping the script, suggesting that her voice is being unfairly suppressed by all-powerful trans activists. She is the one who needs protecting, she suggests. While survivors of sexual assault of course deserve sensitive consideration, it is not at all clear why Rowling should feel threatened by the printed gender identity on a potential attacker’s birth certificate.
Exactly how does a simpler Gender Recognition application process threaten women? The argument seems to be that it would provide easier access to sex-segregated places like washrooms and changing facilities. Since these facilities have no mechanism in place for scanning birth certificates upon entry, it’s not entirely clear where the concern lies in practical terms.
Why are “gender critical” feminists so insistent that this issue has bearing on women’s bathrooms? It is perhaps conceivable that someone might present a birth certificate to justify their presence in a women-only bathroom, but this kind of confrontation can foreseeably fall into one of two possible scenarios: a cis woman complains merely because of the other person’s presence, a reaction that is discriminatory and should be discouraged; a cis woman complains because someone who appears gender-queer is harassing and/or assaulting fellow patrons, a situation that would still be subject to legal scrutiny (and might in fact lead to the criminal charges that apply to false Gender Recognition claims).
I have written a more thorough opinion piece that interrogates the supposed need to protect sex-segregated public spaces, but ultimately, the “gender critical” argument appears to rest more on the symbolic significance of the government’s position than on its direct consequences. Retailers, restaurants, and other public spaces are, perhaps, more likely to adopt trans-inclusive policies in their restrooms if the government establishes self-identification as the primary criterion for determining gender. As Rowling herself points out, many public and private institutions have already taken this step, so it is really about adding greater impetus to an existing trend.
These reforms could conceivably contribute to a climate of acceptance around those who are still transitioning, or those who are non-binary. In other words, acceptance will extend beyond those who have clearly already undergone extensive hormone therapy. Again, what is the practical fallout of these changes? A society that is more accepting of non-binary identities could even reduce the pressure to commit fully to hormone therapy and/or surgery right away, in this way giving gender-questioning individuals more freedom to approach the transition process in gradual stages. Where is the threat to cis-gendered women?
For Rowling and for many other “gender critical” feminists, the threat lies in erasing the distinction between cis women and trans women in day-to-day interactions, precisely because they want to keep sex-segregated spaces as exclusive as possible. At its core, their argument rests on erasing the distinction between transgender people and those who might wear women’s clothing as a kind of criminal disguise.
How Does a Fictional Serial Killer Contribute to Transphobia?
There are many reasons to suspect a transphobic agenda behind Rowling’s decision to invent a fictional transvestite serial killer, but the most obvious argument stems from Rowling’s own self-published statements. Her blog post makes a direct connection between her political concerns and her fiction:
“On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself […].”
It hardly seems a coincidence that the most recent installment in this series includes a cross-dressing serial killer guilty of the most gruesome crimes described in the novel’s lengthy catalogue of grievances committed against women.
Some might object that Creed is not actually trans, but that objection fails to account for what is at issue here: Should sex-segregated spaces have an inclusive policy towards those who are visibly gender-queer? From an outside perspective, there is no way to tell the difference between someone who is non-binary or transitioning vs. someone who is merely assuming this identity provisionally. In practical terms, trying to build an access policy that excludes a hypothetical Denis Creed means limiting the everyday rights of trans and non-binary people.
By fuelling fears about the possibility of ulterior motives, Troubled Blood will only contribute further to the stigma that trans and non-binary people already face. Some might agree with Piers Morgan that authors should have the freedom to cast serial killers within any identity profile they want; after all, in the real world, serial killers come from all walks of life — not just the demographic of straight white males. In fact, Rowling has explained that she based Dennis Creed on two real-life cross-dressing murderers: Jerry Brudos and Russell Williams. (Brudos and Creed are actually compared to each other within the fictional world of the book itself.)
There are several issues with this line of argumentation. One is that Rowling’s very public commentary on trans rights makes it difficult to read Troubled Blood as anything other than a fictional illustration of her real-life warnings. Rowling has indicated that, among other themes, Troubled Blood is a reflection of her feminist beliefs — “[t]he changing face of feminism and ideals and stereotypes of femininity are also examined through the cast of characters” — and she has elsewhere made it abundantly clear that she sees the criticism of trans activism as central to the feminist cause. It is no surprise then that she would include a transvestite serial rapist and murderer in her extended feminist allegory. She sees trans rights as a direct threat to women’s rights.
It is also worth pointing out that Dennis Creed adds to a long list of fictional characters who portray gender-non-conforming people as violent predators, well out of proportion to the overlap between these two identities within the real world. Silence of the Lambs and Psycho immediately come to mind. Much like the tendency to portray villains with foreign accents, this trope exploits society’s initial discomfort with the unfamiliar. Because this mechanism feeds into pre-existing biases, writers ought to show extreme care when casting any minority in a negative role.
With regard to the point that Rowling based Dennis Creed on two real-life serial killers, it is worth mentioning that neither Jerry Brudos nor Russell Williams appeared to have used cross-dressing as a means to trick their victims into a position of undue trust. That tactic was created entirely from Rowling’s imagination. Williams’ cross-dressing activities seem to have been done exclusively in private, and while Brudos was dressed in women’s clothing when he captured one of his victims, he led her away at gunpoint — there is no indication that she cooperated with him because his feminine clothing put her at ease. In short, while Brudos and Williams did have a proclivity for women’s clothing, there is no reason to believe that it presented any kind of advantage in their efforts to abduct women.
Does Rowling Connect Creed’s Cross-Dressing with His Murderous Intentions?
In contrast to the real-life serial killers that served as examples, Creed has a clear strategic motive behind his cross-dressing.
Several passages from the novel speculate about cross-dressing as a decoy tactic. At one point the detectives wonder whether Dr. Bamborough, the missing woman whose cold case they are investigating, might have accepted a van ride from Creed because he “seemed safe,” appearing as “what she thinks is a woman.” The novel also contains an excerpt from a fictional Creed biography, titled The Demon of Paradise Park, explaining that “Creed had perfected […] a convivial, sexually ambiguous persona that worked well with the drunk and lonely.” Elaborating on this line of reasoning, a passage of free indirect discourse conveys the suspicions of detective Robin Ellacott:
“Dennis Creed had been a meticulous planner, a genius of misdirection[…] dressed in the pink coat he’d stolen from [landlady] Vi Cooper, and sometimes wearing a wig that, from a distance, to a drunk victim, gave his hazy form a feminine appearance just long enough for his large hands to close over a gasping mouth.”
Then, later in the novel, Creed himself boastfully provides a confession that confirms this interpretation of his motives:
“‘[I]n a wig, bit of lipstick… they think you’re harmless, odd… maybe queer. Talked to her for a minute or two, little dark corner. You act concerned […] So I say, “Well, I got to go now, sweetheart, you be careful.” “Be careful!” It always worked.’ Creed affected squeaky tones to imitate [one of his victims,] Gail, ‘“Aw, don’t go, have a drink!” “No, darling, I need my beauty sleep.” That’s when you prove you’re not a threat. You make as if you want to leave, or actually walk away. Then, when they call you back, or run into you ten minutes later, when they’re starting to feel like shit [because they’ve been drugged], they’re relieved, because you’re the nice man who’s safe…’”
The intended message is clear: Feminine-appearing men pose a real threat to unsuspecting women.
Is Rowling Being Unfairly ‘Cancelled’?
When it comes to the question of ‘cancelling’ Rowling, it’s important to point out that for her, this term almost exclusively refers to selective boycotting of her work. She is not in a position where she can be fired, she is already obscenely rich, and realistically, she’s not likely to lose her entire readership overnight. Perhaps we should all play the world’s tiniest violin for Troubled Blood reaching the top of the UK’s book charts.
Rowling has a massive following, and it is precisely this influence that is driving much of the criticism against her. Activists realize that she is a skilled writer, and that her voice matters. They also realize that despite her objections to the contrary, her contribution to the debate is transphobic.
In her June blog post, Rowling did acknowledge that violence against trans women — particularly those of colour — is a major issue. It is unfortunate, however, that Rowling’s concern does not extend to a more inclusive position on trans rights, or even to greater accuracy when reporting relevant research.
It is hard not to infer an anti-trans agenda behind Rowling’s post when she uses so many different, ill-supported points to argue her case. Her biggest concern appears to be access to sex-segregated spaces, but she does not stop there.
In addition to misrepresenting the research that she paraphrases but does not cite, Rowling repeatedly presumes to know what motivates people: Trans men are merely trying to avoid sexism directed at women, trans women are trying to avoid homophobia directed at gay men, and last but not least, all women who have experienced violent attacks or sexual assault disapprove of trans-inclusive washrooms:
“Polls [of unspecified source] show those women [who oppose ‘degendered’ bathrooms] are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.”
Rowling even pretends to understand the needs of trans men better than they do themselves. In a remarkable act of willful misgendering, she frames herself as their ally in the very act of undermining their identity as men:
“Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary — they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.”
Perhaps Rowling is so accustomed to the omniscient perspective of her narrative voice that she imagines herself to have the same degree of perspicacity over everyone in the real world. What the public needs to remember is that Rowling does not have the ability to speak for vast swathes of people, and the fictional worlds that she creates are not an unbiased reflection of reality. She may be part of the debate on access to public washrooms and changing facilities, but no one needs to give her the last word.
What’s Really at Stake Here?
For an alternative perspective, here are two quotes from proponents of further reform to the Gender Recognition Act — the first responds to the scaled-back policy changes recently announced by the UK parliament, and the second makes the case for more extensive reforms in Scotland:
“We are disappointed that the [UK] Government reforms make no mention of non-binary identities and fall short of self-declaration, a move which would have brought England and Wales into line with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, where society has benefited from a de-medicalised system for gender recognition since 2015, without any problematic outcomes.”
“The current process, under the GRA, means trans people have to go through a series of intrusive medical assessments and long, demeaning and bureaucratic interviews with psychiatrists in order to ‘prove’ their gender identity. […] This recognition process is lengthy — and can take many years. The length of time and the number of professionals who need to be involved puts an unnecessary strain on our NHS. But more importantly, it means that trans people cannot determine their own personal identity.”
