A Lesson on Standing for Your Values, Brought to You by J.K. Rowling

Well, I was going to originally end this trilogy on author drama with J.K. Rowling. I wanted to comment on how, by the looks of it, she was staying silent about her activism just because she made an unfortunate mistake. But, because I do every single thing on this blog too late, other events have transpired.

For those who are out of the loop, Joanne tweeted this:

Yikes...

I know what you're going to say. "But S.K., didn't you just say that J.K. Rowling should be free to say whatever she wants to say????" Honey, don't put words in my mouth. This blog post wasn't going to originally be about the almighty frozen peach. It was going to be about fiercely owning your activism for marginalized people. It was going to be about the wobbly learning curve that people with privilege go through when learning about power and privilege. It was going to be about how Ms. Rowling made a mistake despite having her heart in the right place. It was going to be about what I learned from her learning experience.

Rowling can believe whatever she wants. But that doesn't mean that she's free from dissection or critique. She can look at all of it and learn from it if she wants or she can decide that none of this information is beneficial to her. I'm hoping she'll do the former.

First, let's take a look at what Maya Forstater originally said:

(Credit for this image, as far as I know, goes to Twitter user @tyleranny.)

I don't know who Forstater is or where she is aligned politically. But when I read her tweets, it sounds exactly like something a TERF would say. She's a researcher apparently, so she doesn't sound the least bit ignorant. (I use the term "ignorant" academically, not as a pejorative in regard to her.) Yet, despite all of the scientific evidence of the gender spectrum,  Forstater takes the (forgive me for saying this) idiot's argument of willingly not knowing the difference between sex and gender. She directly and maliciously misgenders trans women. She uses the classic TERF strawman of the perverted man who misuses trans identity to get into women's spaces.

What she doesn't do is account for the high rates of suicides, hate crimes and discrimination that trans women face. What she doesn't do is bother to account for the trans men who also exist. (Why is that important if she's just worried about pervy people misusing trans identity? It matters because she's majorly cherrypicking. If she's gonna espouse an ideology as inflammatory as TERFdom? TERFism? she better either cover all her bases or just flat out admit that she hates trans women.)

Back to J.K. Rowling. Unbeknownst to me (I haven't been following her on Twitter for a long time), she has actually shown TERFish tendencies before. But, because she didn't say anything outright and she just favorited TERF tweets, people just tried to see the best in her and chalked it up to her accidentally hitting the favorite button. Alas, her newest tweet confirms what everyone was apparently fearing. Objectively, it doesn't seem like the worst TERF tweet out there. All she said was that trans people were allowed to pursue their lifestyle, but they couldn't deny the existence of biological sex...right?
Well, something didn't sit right about the tweet. As civil as it was, I detected a hint of condescension in it. And because I'm an idiot who has trouble extracting meaning from tactfully-worded phrases, my lightbulb didn't go on right away. There was an uneasy, threatening feeling about the phrasing, but I didn't know why.

Then I came across this tweet and it recontextualized it in a way that I couldn't (or wouldn't):

 

(Credit goes to @KaijuKisser)

 

At this point, I don't think it matters what kind of TERF Rowling is. Whether she's "civil" or outspoken like Maya Forstater, it's clear that she wants to present trans people and their allies as people who deny biological sex. Look, nobody is denying biological sex. (Okay, maybe some people are. But that's an incredibly small number of people.) But every single TERF is denying the scientific evidence of gender expression. Every single TERF, as smart as they want to pretend to be, denies that there's a difference between gender and sex.

 

Yes, biological sex comes with certain constraints. It limits some key biological functions that trans people wish they could experience, like becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else. But that's all it does. Biological sex only ever determines biological functions, like whether or not you can become pregnant, menstruate or impregnate people with uteruses. It does not determine how a person functions on the social, mental, emotional or even neurological level. There was a study that determined that gay men's brains functioned in a similar mode to a straight woman's brain. (And vice versa with lesbians and straight men.) So if gay men can still present as cisgender, but have brains that are neurologically similar to straight women, then how are you going to deny the validity of diverse gender expression? Just...get outta heah!

 

Honestly, I've never understood this burgeoning need to misgender people and to force them to accept an identity that they want no part of. Forgive me for using this example, but there is no scientific evidence for the validity of otherkin identities. Yet I can't even find it in me to invalidate their chosen identities. Look sweetie, if you insist that you're a wolf, it's not my business. Be the best damn wolf you can be. Just stay away from my cats, okay? I have pretty low self-esteem, but it's not so low that I feel as I have to force someone to be something that they feel they aren't. So, it's even more puzzling to me that there is so much anthropological, sociological, psychological and yes, even biological evidence of transgenderism and yet people don't want to reconcile with the fact that gender expression just isn't as simple as what's between your legs.

 

As for the allegations that Maya Forstater was fired, I've been hearing differently. Apparently, she wasn't fired on the spot. She was just not renewed for a contract. Now, whatever happened, I don't really care. My stance on a company's right to choose who they work with is the same, regardless of political stance.

 

You see, I'm very critical of capitalism. But, because I'm a Capricorn, I still have an unfortunate fascination with high finance and workplace culture within certain companies. Maybe I'm too much of a sunny optimist, but I place a great amount of trust in a company that demonstrates great social responsibility. I love companies like LUSH or Shea Moisture that demonstrate a commitment to protecting the planet, treating workers fairly, putting pure ingredients in their products and supporting community commerce. I am repelled by companies like Chik-Fil-A and Jimmy Johns that demonstrate a commitment towards oppressing LGBT people and supporting trophy hunting. (Oh, and you want to know what Jimmy John's sneaky super mature response to criticism about their support of hunting endangered animals was? They posted a "No Hippies Allowed" sign at some of their locations. Not relevant to this post, but I'm dying to put that out there.)

 

Alas, every company has a right to determine it's values. Chik-Fil-A and Jimmy Johns are absolutely allowed to believe whatever they want. If anything, I want them to be entirely candid about where they stand. That way, I can give my money to worthier companies.

 

But circling back to my point about this entire tangent, let's just put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Imagine if I was being fired for something that I believed. I work at a tutoring center that caters primarily to Chinese clients. But here's the kicker: I 1,000% do not support China's oppression of Tibet. I find it to be a reprehensible act that is staining the country's image. I've never discussed this with any of my coworkers. Frankly, my beliefs about Tibet-China relations are none of their business as long as I don't bring it up to them. Now, let's say that some anonymous source reports me to my boss. Let's say that she's deeply uncomfortable with my pro-Tibet beliefs and feels that I'm not a good candidate to work with her clients. Is it fair if she fires me? Absolutely.

 

1.) Because her clients will no longer feel safe having their children exposed to my influence. Even if I never bring up my beliefs about China's treatment of Tibet to my actual clients, even if I love Chinese culture but am critical of China's government, my boss has to think of her clients first. She has to think of their comfort and she has to trust that her employees don't compromise her company's values.

 

And 2.) it's a win-win for me. If it turns out that my boss's values are aligned with silencing criticism of how China is treating Tibet, then that's not a company I want to work for anyways. There are many companies out there that believe in human decency over meaningless diplomacy and a refusal to talk about hard topics.

 

Maya Forstater had a choice to keep quiet about her bigotry. J.K. Rowling had a choice to keep quiet about her thinly-veiled, tiptoeing bigotry. In the end, they chose to stick to their values. And I'm glad they did. No company should have to put its trans clients in an uncomfortable position because Forstater won't serve them with kindness and decency. And no trans reader should be forced to support an author who has never had their best interests at heart. At the end of the day, Forstater and Rowling will attract exactly the crowd they want and their former clients will be allowed to pursue a company or author that not only celebrates who they are, but includes their identities in their studies and their stories.




By the way, yes, I've heard of the RWA scandal. I have nothing constructive to say about it. Many greater authors than I have spoken about it at great length already. So I'm just gonna piggyback on this post to do a quick RWA shitpost.

*fancy violin music starts playing* "Unforgivable, unforgivable, unforgivable!  How can you give so many starry-eyed readers such dreamy, heart-melting stories of true love to read, only for you to spread such burning hatred of love stories that aren't like your own? Even Jane Austen is quaking with rage because of your prejudice! I cannot let you silence writers who fight for justice while claiming to write in the name of love! In the name of the moon, I'll punish you and show you the true meaning of love!"

 

Alright, alright. I'm done here with my nonsense. I didn't want to post this in the #IStandWithCourtney hashtag on Twitter because the RWA debacle is a serious issue that deserves to be treated with respect. If all I have to offer is a silly shitpost, then I might as well keep it on my blog. (We have no standards here at Lit Savvy, anyways.) Until the next post, why don't you go follow me on my other social media sites?

 

Facebook 👍🏼: Savannah K. Salazar

Twitter 🐦: @authorsksalazar

Instagram 📸: @s.k.Salazar