Picture credit: John Phillips/Getty Images
Artillery Row

J.K. Rowling does it again

Why does one woman’s opinion cause so much outrage?

J.K. Rowling has done it again. She shared an opinion and for God’s sake woman, when are you going to stop doing that? 

In 2019 the “be kind” online brigade had scored a massive victory for egalitarianism by reacting to the author’s supportive tweet of Maya Forstater, (who had just lost her employment tribunal for sharing her woman opinions too) with kind death threats, inclusive rape threats and diversity-supporting abusive tweets about Rowling’s looks and age.

But Rowling was not to be deterred. She selfishly carried on using Twitter after a short break; the online bekinder’s had hopefully believed her absence was their victory for kindness, and she had no doubt spent that time “thinking about what she did” but no, in the pandemic she was back.  

Sure enough, there she was sharing her opinions again, like some kind of actual sentient human being, rather than the trillionaire squared everyone knows she is. 

Now, please reader, don’t be fooled by the excuse that she was using her time in lockdown to write a book which she put out for free for frightened children during a unprecedented global pandemic; which was killing millions, keeping us all in our homes, away from friends and loved ones and for which, at that time, there was no reliable treatment or enough PPE. 

No, no no no no no NO. Take that fact immediately from your mind and “wash it” on the “alternate fact” cycle for 60 minutes.

The real reason she was online, I can sex-clusively reveal, was an elaborate plan to upset people by reacting to a tweet about a women’s health awareness raising campaign, which was notable for not actually mentioning women at all.

The online bekinders knew what to do. They bombarded the Twitter feed of the children’s book, where children were posting artwork for a competition, with lots and lots of porn. Which was kind of them.

Take that Rowling — they weren’t fooled by this “Maria Von Trapp singing to frightened children in a thunderstorm about her favourite things, to distract them” routine and they’re not fooled BY YOUR ABUSIVE ICKABOG EITHER. 

Then as if that wasn’t enough, she really went too far. I want you to brace yourselves now, because what I have to say is awful — she wrote an essay explaining why she felt the way she did.

The online bekinders didn’t much concern themselves with the details mostly because, as with the Cass Review final report, they seemingly didn’t bother to actually read it. 

Thousands of abusive, defamatory tweets about the author later, we arrive at the new hate crime act in Scotland. As of April 1st (no, really) if you sustained a “mind bruise on your thought place” by reading words written online, you could pop down to one of several hubs set up to report (including that well known cathedral of equality, a sex shop).

Once the report has been made, the Scottish Police — who might otherwise be investigating less important crimes like murder — can rush along to the slightly discomfited and see it, say it, sort it out.

Well you can imagine what happened next. JK Rowling who was holidaying (in her trillionaire squared villa on Mars, probably) did what fascists do and called a well-known transwoman (which at the risk of going full Justin Webb on you, is a biological male who transitions to live in the acquired gender of woman) a man.

Now, to be clear, India Willoughby — the target of Rowling’s mind-blowing observation of biological fact —  had already raised the stakes over several years with various comments about various people, mostly women, whose POV were deemed transphobic, so this wasn’t entirely out of the common way by Willoughby’s tweeting habit. Most notably Willoughby, who has previously biologically fathered children, had claimed to be “more of a woman than JK Rowling will ever be”

So the kindness die was cast already.

Fortunately, however, the online bekinders are also quite tribal to their own team, so the reports about Rowling came in, in their thousands. People were seeing this shameless tweet (to use its dead name) of biological fact, with their literal eyes and so justice was swiftly brought to bear. 

This new crime carried a potential punishment of a custodial sentence

The internet held its collective breath. This new crime carried a potential punishment of a custodial sentence. Would J.K. Rowling jump into her car just like OJ Simpson and flee the scene, followed by a fleet of police cars and Cabaret Against the Hate following behind in a vehicle fitted with a loud hailer screaming the lyrics to “Fuck You” by Lily Allen? 

But no none of that happened. In fact nothing happened at all. Which is probably for the best because imagine being the police officer who had to tell his tearful grandchildren that he just arrested their favourite writer and why.

Sadly for the online bekinders nothing actually happened but it’s the thought crime that counts.

But now we come to today. 

Yep, online be kinders, gird your pronouned loins because guess what? 


JK Rowling spoke her mind. She said what she thought and as a feminist who is critical of gender ideology, she’s criticised gender ideology “feministly”

It all boils down to former cardiac patient Lucy Clark (no relation) who, in 2018, after a series of heart attacks, decided or discovered in recovery that in fact “he was a she” and so took a walk on the wild side and transitioned to become the world’s first transgender referee.

Lucy also made it into the Guinness Book of World Records.

Well, now Lucy has transitioned again from referee to manager of a woman’s football team and J.K. Rowling made a joke quote-tweet over a tweet of Clark’s photo.

The joke/Scottish hate crime was “When I was young, all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it’s fantastic to see how much things have changed”. 

The fact is, that when it comes to J.K. Rowlings tweets and views, “nothing has changed”. She told the world that sex and gender identity are different in 2020 in her essay and she’s saying a shortened version of exactly the same thing now. Because it’s true. 

It might not be kind of Rowling to highlight individual examples of prominent trans women who are biologically male, but these are people in the public eye, whose “gender identity” has become the focus of discussion. It’s also not cruel or derogatory of J.K. Rowling to meet a request to call them by female pronouns, with a “no”. Compelled speech isn’t yet the law in the U.K. and neither is compelled belief. 

Why should any woman famous or unknown, wealthy or not, surrender at the demand or command of anyone, and be forced into believing, or being forced to say, what she knows not to be true. How is that kind? 

Where does this compelled line end? 

Rather than seeing Rowling as a bully of minorities, I know her to be a champion of some of the most truly marginalised minorities, such as severely learning disabled women and women with dementia, in need of intimate personal care and unable to comply with modish linguistic demands. She’s putting herself between them and an ideology which dominates every system in place to keep them safe. Rather than be forced to comply, she has forced open debate which has hitherto be suppressed on the basis of being unkind

If you are still unconvinced that we’re all not being “kind” enough to the right people however, then I would urge you to read the Cass Review final report. Read about how many children who don’t have gender dysphoria — as well as the small minority who do — have been flocking to gender identity services. Read about the numbers of autistic children — particularly girls and gay, lesbian and bisexual teens — who were treated medicinally when they shouldn’t have been. Or those children who in a desperate attempt to process, as historic sexual abuse survivors, were trying to manage residual trauma.

Read it and weep, like I did, and don’t demand answers from J.K. Rowling for her behaviour but ask yourself what kindness really means, online and off.

Just remember it takes a village.

Enjoying The Critic online? It's even better in print

Try five issues of Britain’s newest magazine for £10

Critic magazine cover