A Rationale for Rowling’s Recent Writing
Much has been said about Ms. Rowling’s June 10th writings on “sex and gender issues.” For detailed analysis, read these Twitter threads by Sara McCartney and Andrew James Carter. There are additional responses on any number of platforms, but from what I have read, they missed the bit that stood out to me.
Most of what she wrote is a compendium of clichéd anti-trans tropes collected and presented as a rational, researched defense of her position as well as a prosecution of trans people who dare to publicly besmirch her good name.
And it’s her GOOD name, you see, that she is most concerned about because she believes herself to be a GOOD PERSON. She does GOOD THINGS! She has a charitable trust that financially supports many worthy causes — no snark at this as money donated to support worthy causes is generally a good thing.
But then, there are a number of motives for having a charitable trust. Most are honorable. Some are less so. The show, Billions, does a lovely job portraying very wealthy people using charitable trusts to rehabilitate their public images. It also shows that some organizations can be reluctant to publicly honor donations because they wish to protect their own public images.
The following is my read on her motivations based on the tone and content of her writing. I cannot prove what I am saying. But then again, she cannot prove what she says about what motivates trans people either.
Rowling is quite put out by the backlash against her and how it is affecting her ability to be publicly feted. She writes:
…accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground.‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair…
She literally bullies ‘people in positions of power’ — taunting them to man up.
Minor Tangent:
The creator of Hermione Granger, one of the most badass young women in YA, espouses the belief that people without testicles — actual or metaphoric — are cowardly.
Another Minor Tangent:
I say ‘people without testicles’ so as to include cis women, trans women who have had GRS or an orchiectomy, trans men who have not had bottom surgery, intersex folk who do not have them, and non-binary folk who do not have them. I should mention that the possession of testicles does not endow their owner with any additional degree of bravery and can often lead to risk-averse actions when the well-being of said anatomy is directly threatened.
And why is she so angry at these people? It’s simple, really. She has been working hard over the years to be a polarizing figure. She has often punched up, which is generally celebrated but does bring on a decent share of negative attention from some. Her books have been banned and burned, for which there is no excuse.
Yet Another Minor Tangent:
We can have the argument about the relative value of an artistic work as measured by the character of its creator another time. I am not ashamed to say I have enjoyed the HP series. I expect many of you are not either, which is why this hurts more.
When a very public and very wealthy celebrity with an expansive and easily influenced fan base commits an inexcusable crime or repeatedly punches down, there is a problem that makes it difficult for affiliated organizations — especially those that benefit from an association with said celebrity — to continue their relationship.
Now remember, there are benefits to having a charitable trust other than knowing you have done good in the world. They can be a public signifier that you are a GOOD PERSON. Additionally, these organizations celebrate you at lovely events that both raise the profile of the organization and remind the world just how GOOD you are. Of course, these celebrations of your GOODNESS are only attended by others such as yourself. If their charitable trusts are not yet supporting the organization, sharing in the glow of your high profile GOODNESS might just motivate them to advise their trustees to shift a part of that year’s available funds to the hosting organization.
Now what happens when all your punching down makes you so toxic that the organizations no longer invite you to their functions out of the legitimate fear that continuing to publicly associate with you might hinder their ability to gain or retain the support of charitable funds other than your own?
You might feel hurt by their betrayal — angry enough to advise them to take on the heroic qualities of the testicle-endowed. These feelings might inspire you to take to the internet to offer a defense of your position that will reverse their ability to take advantage of their good fortune at being able to benefit from a small share your vast fortune. But simply providing your easily disprovable arguments is not enough. You must show that you have not been punching down — that you are the victim in all of this.
So you reluctantly share that you suffered abuse at the hand of your first husband.
I have sympathy for anyone who has suffered at the hand, mouth, or pen of another.
I have antipathy for anyone who would weaponize their suffering to justify or mitigate the consequences of their abuse of others. Suffering does not provide license to cause others to suffer.
How can these culturally castrated organizations possibly turn their backs on you knowing that you have this history?
How could it not provide them with the testicular fortitude to do your version of the right thing and restore you to your privileged position in society and once again seat you at a place of honor at celebrations of your GOODNESS?
I cannot help to think this is the rationale for what Ms. Rowling wrote.
You are free to think otherwise.
