The Human Rights Campaign is lying about J.K Rowling's views on trans issues
The New York Times recently ran an opinion piece titled ‘In Defence of J.K Rowling’. Better late than never I suppose. One can’t help but think many a publication are slowly being hit with a crippling realisation that perhaps they got this whole gender debate wrong. And that when the dust has settled and the collateral damage can be clearly seen, they may just be held to account for their complicity.
An organisation lacking in any such self-awareness is the ‘Human Rights Campaign’. Seemingly outraged that The New York Times have bucked the trend of simply making stuff up about Rowling, they decide to tweet out a stream of defamatory lies about Rowling’s views:
They helpfully provide the first round of creative writing in bullet point form:
‘Compared being trans to “conversion therapy”, a dangerous and disproven practice’.
There appears to be an entirely intentional muddying of the water with the description of “conversion therapy” here. Yes, there is such a thing called “conversion therapy” which is dangerous, disproven and grotesque. Broadly, this was the appalling idea that homosexuality is an illness that could be ‘cured’ with just the right ‘treatment’. This practice has led to incalculable misery visited on gay people.
However, all Human Rights Campaign had to do to show JK Rowling was actually defending the rights of gay people against this sort of thing would have been to include her actual words. Which is why they didn’t.
Rowling’s comments about ‘conversion therapy’ were part of an eleven tweet Twitter thread. The relevant portion is below:
There is a growing concern that young gay people are being led to believe they are not simply just gay, but may instead be ‘trapped in the wrong body’. Many are tragically figuring out this is not the case after years of irreversible surgical damage and medicalisation. No small amount of homophobia underpins this problem as religious conservatives are often more comfortable with the idea of having a new daughter than a gay son.
It’s one of the reasons the country of Iran seems so ‘progressive’ on the issue of trans rights—as the state funds transition for its citizens. But it takes moments to realise this is due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Iran and therefore it’s better to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist by way of eradication via transition.
Rowling’s claims about “conversion therapy” are not plucked from the recesses of her imagination—this very issue was documented in a BBC expose on the Tavistock gender clinic in the UK. The BBC found that whistle-blowers were concerned some transitions were fuelled by homophobia.
Since Rowling’s tweets criticising the Tavistock clinic, the clinic was permanently closed in July 2022 after an independent investigation found a slew of failings relating to children. The clinic is currently the target of legal action from thousands of people due to these failings. An upcoming book details the extent to which the Tavistock gender clinic gambled with the health of children in service of ideology.
Questioned hormone replacement therapy despite lacking any medical expertise.
This one is perhaps the most notable for it being the only claim about Rowling that is almost true and yet somehow the weakest. It is also helpful as it gets right to the heart of the problem with gender ideology. Rowling just having ‘questioned’ something is considered beyond the pale, further demonstrating this ideology treats dissent like fundamentalist religion treats ‘blasphemy’.
I cannot actually locate any of Rowling’s criticisms of ‘hormone replacement therapy’. The HRC are likely talking about her criticisms of giving ‘puberty blockers’ to ‘children without parental consent’:
Questioning the long-term effects of drugs that were not intended for long-term use, especially when it comes to children, is absolutely necessary. Especially when parental consent is not sought. Puberty blockers are drugs originally used in the short-term to slow the onset of precocious puberty. They are now being used long-term to halt the development of those wishing to transition. Given this is a relatively new purpose for puberty blockers, we do not yet have the data for potential long-term, adverse effects. There are already reasons to suggest long-term use could impact height, bone density and fertility.
Incorporated transphobic plots into her mystery novels.
This is a claim about a single book by Rowling titled ‘Troubled Blood’ (penned as Robert Galbraith). The claim of ‘transphobic plots’ pertains to this sole paragraph about a fictional criminal suspect:
He had his failures you know. Penny Hiskett, she got away from him and gave the police a description in ’71, but that didn’t help them much. She said he was dark and stocky, because he was wearing a wig at the time and all padded out in a woman’s coat. They caught him in the end because of Melody Bower. Nightclub singer, looked like Diana Ross. Creed got chatting to her at the bus stop, offered her a lift, then tried to drag her into the van when she said no. She escaped, gave the police a proper description and told them he’d said his house was of Paradise Park.
That’s it. A criminal bloke uses a disguise to gain an advantage over his victims. This is a description of male criminality, not transgenderism. You can read more about the hysteria and misrepresentation of this work of fiction here.
The next claim by the HRC was so untethered from reality even they had the good sense to delete it:
Above, the HRC has singled out this particular tweet to make some laughably false claims:
The use of the #IStandWithMaya hash tag is a reference to the case of Maya Forstater. Maya lost a job at a think tank in 2019 when she tweeted that humans could not change their biological sex. Contrary to the claims of the HRC, Maya took her former employers to court. And won. The court ruled that Maya was discriminated against due to her gender critical beliefs and reiterated that her belief in biological sex is protected under law. The official judgement ruled that Maya’s Forstater’s beliefs were "worthy of respect in a democratic society".
Why on earth would the HRC attempt to spin this case as the complete opposite of what it is? This particular tweet was subsequently deleted without retraction or explanation.
Next, the HRC tells us Rowling published a ‘manifesto defending her transphobic beliefs’.
Tellingly, the HRC fail to provide a link to this ‘transphobic manifesto’ for reasons that should be obvious by now. What they are referring to is Rowling’s thoughtful and compassionate piece of writing titled ‘Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues’.
As you can read for yourself, the article is awash with support for transgender rights and empathy for the unique obstacles transgender people face:
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men. So I want trans women to be safe…
The HRC seem happy to ignore the human rights issues that are actually there, e.g. an account of death threats, violent abuse and concerns for the safeguarding of children and gay people, in favour of attempting to highlight what isn’t there, e.g. ‘transphobia’.
The HRC then takes issue with JK Rowling playfully poking fun at the continued erasure of the word ‘woman’:
As Rowling wrote in the aforementioned ‘manifesto’:
the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.
Rowling is not the only person to have noticed that these new progressive terms for ‘women’ are indistinguishable from misogynistic slurs. There’s also another issue here in that vulnerable women whose first language may not be English may not recognise themselves in terms such as ‘menstruators’ and ‘womb havers’. This may impact on their ability to access female health services. Many of you may have also noticed that there is no similar ‘inclusive language’ campaign to replace the word ‘men’. Women having access to the language necessary to accurately describe reality is not ‘transphobic’.
This brings us to perhaps the HRC’s most ethically confused criticism of JK Rowling:
Rowling tweeted out a news story detailing how rapists with a penis (see ‘men’) are being logged in the legal system as ‘women’ if that is their preferred gender identity. Basically, the HRC are coming out strong here for the right of male rapists not to have their feelings hurt.
There are a number of issues with this approach to gender ID. Firstly, would the HRC be comfortable sending intact biological male rapists to female prisons? Do they believe a victim of rape should have to accept their rapist is actually a woman?
These are not hypotheticals. The Scottish justice system has been embroiled in a rather public row about which prison a transgender double rapist should be sent to. There are whole female led organisations campaigning to ‘Keep Prisons Single Sex’. Female victims of assault at the hands of biological men have been reprimanded in court for refusing to describe their attacker a woman.
Furthermore, mainstream newspapers have altered the direct quotes of rape victims to avoid misgendering the male rapist. The BBC also became the latest prominent news outlet to be found guilty of this.
Why is it more important to coerce people in to pretending humans can change their sex than it is for the right of women to accurately describe their oppression at the hands of men? Why is the potential hurt feelings of biological men more important than than the right of women to speak accurately about male violence and issues that uniquely effect women?
We do not even have to demand these things in order to guarantee transgender rights.
The HRC want nothing more than women to shut up on this issue. Because women understand these issued better than anyone else. I’m grateful people like J.K Rowling continue to refuse this request.
Yep.
I had a n-other-social-media conversation with someone who said that they were in a quandry about buying their child the Hogwarts Legacy game. On the one hand they didn't want their child to miss out, on the other hand they were concerned about "inclusion". I asked them to expand on this lack of inclusion.
The two immediate examples given back were JKR's tweet about "there used to be a word for people who menstruate" and her choice of nom de plume for the Strike series. Amongst other lines of debate, I pointed them to this article to which I got this rather astonishing (in my view) response, which I have their permission to share:
"This is a man who regularly attacks transgender rights, is "anti-woke" (read: "anti-empathy"), attacks critical race theory, and basically trying to milk the alt-right shitbag path.
So he writes a blog post where he takes some HRC statements, gives incomplete information about them, tries to paint Rowling in a positive light, and ignores the gestalt of the situation. That's a common tactic of bigots.
Do not share his work with me again."
I (@mart_brooks) do not agree with their perception of your work, and am frankly baffled by them.