Fuck You, Joanne

Words by Louise Jackson

Trigger warnings: transphobia, domestic violence At the tender age of eight, I took my first step into the wizarding world. I was hooked. Like so many before me, I was swept away by friendship and found family and flubberworms. The magic was never really the literal magic. JK Rowling was my hero, a woman who defied the odds to tell a story of good triumphing over evil. However, over the last twelve years, I’ve come to hate her.

THE ORIGINAL SINS THE ORIGINAL SINS I admit that for many years, the original sins went right over my cis-white head. Cho Chang, one of the few characters of colour, has a thoughtless and ambiguous Asian name. The goblins are an antisemitic stereotype. Werewolves were allegedly an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. Houselves are willing slaves and Hermione’s crusade for their rights is made the butt of the joke. Female characters experience, and don’t question, a deeply patriarchal world.

was a hotbed of post-textual revelations. Were non-Christian students allowed at Hogwarts? Of course! Were queer students in attendance? Obviously! But if you look for textual evidence, there’s very little to find.

Her most infamous post-textual take was announcing in an interview after the series’ conclusion that problematic fave and Hogwart’s Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, was gay. He was in love with Grindelwald, aka wizard Hitler…

Harry Potter taught many of us that difference was a gift, but only at a surface-level.

The first hints of Rowling’s transphobia came in 2018 when she liked a tweet describing trans women as ‘men in dresses’. Her publicity team dismissed this as an accident. She later expressed support for Maya Forstater, whose employment was terminated on grounds she was creating a hostile environment for a trans co-worker. The basis of Rowling’s defence was a misplaced belief that trans activists are denying the existence of sex, or claiming that biological sex can be changed. Trans theory does not deny sex, but creates a distinction between sex and gender.

Inclusive language was the next Rowling target. She took issue with the term ‘people who menstruate’ – ‘I’m sure there used to be a word for those people… Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?’. To put aside how trivialising this take is of a complex issue, Rowling implies inclusive language is undermining the experience of womanhood. This is not the case. The separation of menstruation from fundamental womanhood is a positive not only for trans inclusion; it helps validate the experiences of all those who don’t fit that traditional mould. But don’t worry, Rowling has trans friends.

Then came The Essay. In June 2020, J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues was published on Rowling’s blog. The ideology presented in The Essay aligned with the Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) movement. It was the final nail in the JK coffin for a lot of us.

The TERF movement frames transgender people as the biggest threat to modern womanhood. Rowling suggests the rapid increase in trans men is caused by women wanting to transition away from discrimination. She believes them to be women escaping misogyny or lesbians escaping homophobia. This claim ignores that trans people experience more risk and discrimination than those groups. Rowling suggests she too may have fallen to transitioning when she felt disconnected from womanhood as a young person. Fundamentally, her view trivialises the trans experience of gender and ignores the thorough process that occurs before anyone transitions.

Rowling claims trans women are a threat to women’s spaces, as anyone could be a man in disguise. She says her experience of domestic violence and sexual harassment informs this idea. The problem, however, lies with abusers, not trans women. Trans women are women and do not deserve to have rights withheld ‘just in case’.

JK has mastered the art of painting all her critics with the same brush. She has received death threats for her rhetoric (which is never justified), but she uses that extreme to dismiss all valid criticism of her views as well; the critics are just misogynistic harassers. It’s us-vs-them, Rowling’s TERFs against the radical lefties destroying the concept of sex.

Rowling was something far bigger than herself. She was a woman who faced great challenges and beat the odds. She was the strong female role model.

The first Harry Potter book was written over a fraught period of Rowling’s life. Her mother’s death in 1990 greatly affected Rowling. In her first marriage, she was a victim of domestic violence. She fled with the manuscript in her suitcase. As a single mother, Rowling lived on government assistance in a tiny flat. When she completed Philosopher’s Stone in 1995, twelve publishers rejected it. The success of Rowling and the Harry Potter series felt bigger than her; the challenges she beat are ones that disproportionately affect women. Rowling emerged from hardship to achieve greatness. Her extensive philanthropy felt like she recognised her newfound privilege and was using it for good.

As Rowling continues her very public spiral into right-wing ideology, one message rings out across the internet – if JK Rowling had just kept her mouth shut, she would have been one of the most beloved children’s authors of all time. How the mighty fall.

What is the ethical approach to Harry Potter? Do we have to let it all go? Why are we even still talking about this?

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, the third film in the series, hit cinemas this April. It now sits as the lowest grossing film in the Wizarding World. But for those who remain undying fans of the franchise, and staunch supporters of Rowling, the film doesn’t have to be good. It prompts a question many of us face – how do you let go of something that shaped who you are? Should you?

JK Rowling is one of the richest women in the world and has robust licensing deals that continue to put millions in her pockets. My choice has been to stop financially supporting the Wizarding World in any way. I refuse to let my money go toward making the lives of trans people harder. If owning Harry Potter stuff is overwhelmingly important, buy it second-hand or support fan-artists. And for the love of God, stop paying to see Fantastic Beasts. I’ve severed my connection with the whole Wizarding World because the betrayal I felt tainted any joy my Dumbledore Funko Pop could bring me. But if that stuff still brings you joy? Who am I to tell you to throw it away?

Removing the work itself is harder. As soon as art is put into the world, that art no longer belongs exclusively to the artist. We can take the positive lessons from the Wizarding World and equally recognise the problematic elements. Our interpretations of the characters and stories we love don’t belong to her. No matter what Rowling does, Hogwarts exists in your heart. And that Hogwarts is a place where everyone belongs.

RECOMMENDED VIEWING

- Responding to JK Rowling’s Essay | Is It Anti-Trans? – Jammidodger - YouTube

- An Over-Emotional Look at Why JK Rowling is Bad – James Somerton – YouTube

- Why JK Rowling’s Trans Views Are So Insidious – Jessie Gender - YouTube

- Harry Potter and the Author Who Failed Us – Aja Romano – Vox

- “Separating Art vs. the Artist” doesn’t work for Harry Potter – Kuncan Dastner – YouTube