Great article. I don't have an opinion on this topic but it is great to see the "other" side of any issue presented without name calling or hate. Pretty rare these days.
I understand Jen's point about the aggressive aspect of posting a billboard but I have to admit I've found the debate to be very loud and one-sided. I agree with Ms Hamm that anyone who steps back to consider the implications of unrestricted self-identification is immediately assumed to be a "phobe" of some sort and by implication, is attacking trans rights. I'm impatient with that kind of nonsense but find I do keep silent as a result. So yeah, I admit I laughed out loud when I saw the billboard.
Great interview. To me the crux of the issue is in Gerson’s 3rd question, and the problematic assumption it contains. “Signalling an allegiance with JK Rowling signals an allegiance with a set of ideological presuppositions with regards to gender and identity and sex-based rights.”
This is exactly the trap in which the less honest and aggressive trans-activists want to box Rowling (important to note, not all trans activists agree with this approach or operate dishonestly).
This kind of trap Is designed to deflect scrutiny and remove nuance. It’s dishonest and creates a false choice (your with me on all counts or your a transphobe). It is in the spirit of rejecting this kind of dishonest smear approach that I interpreted and applauded the billboard.
Rowling has gone to great lengths to make her views abundantly clear. They are the opposite of ideologically-driven. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with her, her views have been thoughtful, nuanced, trans-supportive and intellectually honest. Most of her critics can’t say the same.
I agree, M. And I would take it one step further. The trap you describe above is not only a crude, effective rhetorical strategy, it is also representative of the coercion required to defend a worldview with no apologetic. JK Rowling not only represents a threat of problematic allegiances; the much bigger problem is that she (along with her characters) is an individual. She has accomplishments and not so pretty parts. A modest schoolteacher. A multimillionaire. A victim. An advocate. The experience of a life. In the words of her own craft, she has found her voice.
And this is exactly what is most threatening about her to anyone who primarily identifies as a member of a group. She is outside of the field. Not playing by the rules. And she therefore must be smeared as someone who is anti-group because the alternative is heretical: that these groups aren't foundational -- that someone can transcend them.
Happy you linked to Rowling's essay. The work speaks volumes... both about her clear and level-headed grasp of the issue, and of the hysterical backlash she's received for daring to speak against the orthodoxy.
The loud and angry activists who are hijacking this issue remind me of Hilary Clinton. She turned back the clock on women's rights when she chose to attack the women accusing her philandering husband of sexual harassment. These activists are doing the same with women who are being assaulted by biological men who self-identify as trans.
Did you not read Rowling's initial response to the attacks she got online. Her feelings are based strongly on the sexual abuse she suffered and the PTSD that is triggered when sharing a private space with a biological man. I'm not saying she's right, but her view is informed from her own personal experiences, ones that I'm not willing to discount. And the attacks she has received online for those views have been akin to those received by those truly doing damage to the health and safety of Transgendered individuals. There is nuance to this issue that needs to be examined and addressed, and not by painting all those who don't 100% agree with your position with the same brush
I get the feeling that their attacks probably hurt and she tried to explain herself which only made it worse. I guess where my disconnect is was she received the same treatment as a guy like Mike Pence received. She's wealthy, she has some sway but at the end of the day she's a fiction writer with trauma related to a sexual assault and doesn't appear to be engaging in any active campaign against transgendered rights (but I may be mistaken). My opinion on this matters little, but I find it tough to swallow extremism in any political position. It should go without saying that transgendered rights need to be protected but there are valuable conversations to be had at how you protect those rights in a way that doesn't infringe on others rights to their own health and safety.
Ultimately I read what Rowlings said in one of her first longer essays. I understood her vulnerability as a woman who had been assualted. I appreciated where her position was coming from and didn't come away form it thinking she was anti-Trans. The response kind of surprised me to be honest.
How much of that is on the aggressive militant activism she faced when attempted to explain her position using her own personal pain as an example? She's human, I'm sure the hurt and anger from a woman used to being adored was/is hard. That doesn't excuse hurtful comments but the hatred thrown back at her was pretty intense. Ultimately, I understood where she was coming from on the issue of trying to find a way to preserve a biological woman's right to safety to the rights of transgendered people to live as they wish. I agree with you that a lot of scare tactics or false equivalencies are used, especially by moral majority conservatives to paint all transgendered people as deviant cannot be proven beyond anecdotal evidence or outright feverish delusion but I didn't get the feeling that was what she was doing. She was asking good questions, questions that perhaps shouldn't be up to the "Bathroom bill" warriors of the world to answer. The very fact a feminist woman, concerned for her safety because of traumatic past experiences was treated with the same contempt as the Mike Pences of the world bothers me.
Great article. I don't have an opinion on this topic but it is great to see the "other" side of any issue presented without name calling or hate. Pretty rare these days.
I am a subscriber.
Dan Wright
I understand Jen's point about the aggressive aspect of posting a billboard but I have to admit I've found the debate to be very loud and one-sided. I agree with Ms Hamm that anyone who steps back to consider the implications of unrestricted self-identification is immediately assumed to be a "phobe" of some sort and by implication, is attacking trans rights. I'm impatient with that kind of nonsense but find I do keep silent as a result. So yeah, I admit I laughed out loud when I saw the billboard.
Great interview. To me the crux of the issue is in Gerson’s 3rd question, and the problematic assumption it contains. “Signalling an allegiance with JK Rowling signals an allegiance with a set of ideological presuppositions with regards to gender and identity and sex-based rights.”
This is exactly the trap in which the less honest and aggressive trans-activists want to box Rowling (important to note, not all trans activists agree with this approach or operate dishonestly).
This kind of trap Is designed to deflect scrutiny and remove nuance. It’s dishonest and creates a false choice (your with me on all counts or your a transphobe). It is in the spirit of rejecting this kind of dishonest smear approach that I interpreted and applauded the billboard.
Rowling has gone to great lengths to make her views abundantly clear. They are the opposite of ideologically-driven. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with her, her views have been thoughtful, nuanced, trans-supportive and intellectually honest. Most of her critics can’t say the same.
I agree, M. And I would take it one step further. The trap you describe above is not only a crude, effective rhetorical strategy, it is also representative of the coercion required to defend a worldview with no apologetic. JK Rowling not only represents a threat of problematic allegiances; the much bigger problem is that she (along with her characters) is an individual. She has accomplishments and not so pretty parts. A modest schoolteacher. A multimillionaire. A victim. An advocate. The experience of a life. In the words of her own craft, she has found her voice.
And this is exactly what is most threatening about her to anyone who primarily identifies as a member of a group. She is outside of the field. Not playing by the rules. And she therefore must be smeared as someone who is anti-group because the alternative is heretical: that these groups aren't foundational -- that someone can transcend them.
Happy you linked to Rowling's essay. The work speaks volumes... both about her clear and level-headed grasp of the issue, and of the hysterical backlash she's received for daring to speak against the orthodoxy.
Cheers also to Ms. Hamm for braving the storm.
The loud and angry activists who are hijacking this issue remind me of Hilary Clinton. She turned back the clock on women's rights when she chose to attack the women accusing her philandering husband of sexual harassment. These activists are doing the same with women who are being assaulted by biological men who self-identify as trans.
Did you not read Rowling's initial response to the attacks she got online. Her feelings are based strongly on the sexual abuse she suffered and the PTSD that is triggered when sharing a private space with a biological man. I'm not saying she's right, but her view is informed from her own personal experiences, ones that I'm not willing to discount. And the attacks she has received online for those views have been akin to those received by those truly doing damage to the health and safety of Transgendered individuals. There is nuance to this issue that needs to be examined and addressed, and not by painting all those who don't 100% agree with your position with the same brush
I get the feeling that their attacks probably hurt and she tried to explain herself which only made it worse. I guess where my disconnect is was she received the same treatment as a guy like Mike Pence received. She's wealthy, she has some sway but at the end of the day she's a fiction writer with trauma related to a sexual assault and doesn't appear to be engaging in any active campaign against transgendered rights (but I may be mistaken). My opinion on this matters little, but I find it tough to swallow extremism in any political position. It should go without saying that transgendered rights need to be protected but there are valuable conversations to be had at how you protect those rights in a way that doesn't infringe on others rights to their own health and safety.
Ultimately I read what Rowlings said in one of her first longer essays. I understood her vulnerability as a woman who had been assualted. I appreciated where her position was coming from and didn't come away form it thinking she was anti-Trans. The response kind of surprised me to be honest.
How much of that is on the aggressive militant activism she faced when attempted to explain her position using her own personal pain as an example? She's human, I'm sure the hurt and anger from a woman used to being adored was/is hard. That doesn't excuse hurtful comments but the hatred thrown back at her was pretty intense. Ultimately, I understood where she was coming from on the issue of trying to find a way to preserve a biological woman's right to safety to the rights of transgendered people to live as they wish. I agree with you that a lot of scare tactics or false equivalencies are used, especially by moral majority conservatives to paint all transgendered people as deviant cannot be proven beyond anecdotal evidence or outright feverish delusion but I didn't get the feeling that was what she was doing. She was asking good questions, questions that perhaps shouldn't be up to the "Bathroom bill" warriors of the world to answer. The very fact a feminist woman, concerned for her safety because of traumatic past experiences was treated with the same contempt as the Mike Pences of the world bothers me.