#jkr article

Great article from June by Eileen Blair. Here’s some excerpts: 

“The Bodily Function Which Must Not Be Named

Daniel Radcliffe knows some things about menstruation. Recently he wrote a statement assuring us that the correct word for those who experience periods is not “women” or “girls,” but “people who menstruate.” However, when he told us this, he didn’t actually tell us this. He never used the word “menstruation,” or “period,” or “blood,” or any related word. There was no mention of clots, or cramps, or dysmenorrhea, or endometriosis. He did not name the “people who” experience these things.

Instead, Radcliffe did name author J.K. Rowling, who recently came under fire for stating the controversial opinion that the word “woman” is still of use, and that this now-contested term may even provide a more appealing way to describe human beings than “people who menstruate,” or the more streamlined “menstruator.” But while Radcliffe invoked Rowling’s name, he did not acknowledge her ideas, which she has expressed publicly in a number of tweets and in a recent essay. Instead, he opened his statement by simply insisting that there is no “in-fighting” between him and Rowling, without mentioning why anyone might think there is. He anticipated that “certain press outlets” might seize on the opportunity to report on a conflict between Radcliffe and Rowling, which they promptly did. The Guardian, the Independent, and the Times all referred to a “row” between Rowling and Radcliffe.

On social media, many enthusiastically shared Radcliffe’s statement, but I have yet to see any of Radcliffe’s fans mention that he both failed to identify the topic at hand and neglected to consider Rowling’s ideas about it. In 2020, it seems, if someone mentions Rowling, however obliquely, and with even the slightest hint that they disapprove of her for some reason they need not even state, they can count on being showered with unreserved praise.

The Menstruators Who Must Not Be Named

There is more that is not mentioned. The third sentence of Radcliffe’s statement asserts, “Transgender women are women.” Curiously, he does not go on to say, as anyone familiar with scripture would expect, “Transgender men are men, and nonbinary people are who they say they are.” In fact, there is no mention of transgender men or nonbinary people anywhere in Radcliffe’s statement, even though the ultra-specific term “people who menstruate” is intended to accommodate these groups—people who have periods who do not identify as women.

Why does Radcliffe choose this occasion to remind us that trans women are women? Trans women do not menstruate. This is why it is now considered exclusionary for those women formerly known as women to claim that menstruation is related to being a woman. That’s pretty much the point of terms like “menstruator.” By intoning “transgender women are women,” Radcliffe associates women, and only women, with the expression “people who menstruate.” This is exclusionary and transphobic. Not all women have periods, and not all who have periods identify as women.

Among those who cheered Radcliffe, I have yet to see anyone call out Radcliffe for his exclusionary and transphobic refusal to acknowledge “people who menstruate.”

The Silencing That Must Not Be Spoken Of

There is yet more that is not said. Rowling has been on the receiving end of misrepresentation and verbal abuse for over two years, simply for suggesting that women formerly known as women have the right to discuss the word “woman.” For advocating free speech, she has been derided, slurred, and even threatened.

Into the fray saunters Daniel Radcliffe, who, without any apparent effort, scribbles a few words calculated to score points with his base. His four-word magic incantation, “transgender women are women”—again, this is transphobic and exclusionary of people who menstruate—ignites passions and encourages continued demonization of Rowling. Readers need not even know what Rowling has said, for Radcliffe’s magic spell sanctifies him and positions him securely on the moral high ground. Rather than discuss menstruation, or Rowling’s point of view, he describes the discrimination young transgender and nonbinary people have self-reported. It goes without saying that this should be eradicated, but it is a diversion. Rowling, the prop he uses to display his righteousness, is at this very same moment being mercilessly bullied online and in the press. By ignoring this, by saying her name only to turn away from her, by making the sinner a foil to his own saintliness, he lazily enables those who would consign her to the online ducking stool.

Rowling has taken pains to be considerate and measured, just as women formerly known as women are still expected to do. Nevertheless, she has been described as “hateful” and “transphobic.” She has been accused of saying trans people “don’t exist.” Rowling has been called a “bitch,” a “cunt,” a “whore” (also “hoe”), and even—gasp—“a Karen.” (In reality, the offense seems to be not that Karen has demanded to speak to the manager but that she is the manager.)

As expected, Rowling is also called a “TERF.” (Rhymes with “serf.”) Proponents of “letting people be who they are” have proposed that “TERFs” like Rowling deserve to be physically assaulted or killed. One TERF-hunter calls upon a well-known veteran to do the honors: “I’d pay to watch [Charlotte] Clymer put on her army camo and shoot the TERF.” Another goes for the DIY approach: “Smack JK Rowling so hard I give that fool a lighting scar on HER forehead.” Rowling has been challenged to a duel by Tara Flik Wolf: “Oi JK rowling ow about you meet me outside! Hyde park! Lets fucking have it you cunt!” (In 2018, Wolf was convicted of assaulting Maria Maclachlan in Hyde Park in London.)

The demeaning comments are not limited to the blue circle of hell known as Twitter; otherwise reputable news outlets have also adopted the term “TERF.” Mainstream publications insist that this is not a misogynistic insult but a neutral term, an acronym radical feminists invented and applied to themselves. No matter how many times we insist that we consider this term a slur, no matter how many times we see “TERF” joined to “bitch” or “cunt,” we are informed that we have misunderstood, that this term is not intended to demean us. We really do like it, we are told. And a minute later we receive, for the 83rd time, a cartoon image with a gun pointed at us, an anime character threatening, “Shut the fuck up, TERF!”

The mainstream media has also joined in telling Rowling to “STFU.” The Washington Post says it directly in an article titled, “J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Shows It’s Time To Put Down The Pen.” Molly Roberts informs us that Rowling is flailing; she’s a bigot; she’s even—middle-aged! And therefore obsolete. Other prominent publications have described her tweets and essay as “transphobic” or “anti-trans.” This is eerily reminiscent of how second-wave feminists were described as “man-haters.” In the 1970s, we were said to hate men. Nowadays we are said to hate trans people. Fifty years ago, we learned to speak about our bodies. Nowadays, we learn how not to.

Major advocacy organizations have issued patronizing “reminders,” as if Rowling has forgotten her lines. The Human Rights Campaign laments, “We see JK Rowling is at it again. Helpful reminder: If your feminism isn’t trans-inclusive, then it’s not feminism.” A GIF of Emma Watson as Hermione is included for no extra charge, mocking the author with her own invention.”

“Radcliffe’s statement has been applauded online by people like me: college-educated, feminist, middle-aged American women of the sort formerly known as women. I haven’t seen any of them mention the gleeful dehumanization of Rowling; nor I have I seen any of them object that Radcliffe has remained silent about the abuse, or that it was taking place as he crafted his “response.” While he is not directly responsible for others’ treatment of Rowling, he is responsible for contributing to a hostile climate, and not just among anonymous Twitter trolls.He is responsible for what he does and does not say, and for what he does and does not know (or pretends not to know).”

“The final paragraph of Radcliffe’s statement offers consolation to those who feel betrayed, who feel as though their experience of Rowling’s fiction has been sullied by Rowling’s continued existence. He assures fans that they may still be nourished by—well, by “the books,” “these stories,” and “the book that you read,” despite “these comments.” He doesn’t say whose books, whose stories, or whose comments.

The explicitly violent tweets and the contemptuous journalistic dismissals are unsettling enough on their own, and it’s troubling to think that Radcliffe’s failure even to address the matters at hand may have amplified them. But here he moves from omission to erasure. Whereas he began his statement by focusing on Rowling’s name and not her ideas, now he appropriates her ideas while refusing to utter her name. This final negation is pernicious in its own way. Radcliffe opened his statement with an acknowledgment of J.K. Rowling’s influence on his life, but just a few paragraphs later, he seems to have forgotten that he played Harry Potter in the movies based on the books rather than inventing Harry himself. At the same moment when Rowling is being “cancelled” by those who loved her books, as her former fans and even major publications demand that she surrender her agency and autonomy, Radcliffe steps in and arrogates the right to speak for “these stories.” He assures his base that they may still find meaning and solace in the books, despite the mortal sins committed by—She Whose Name Must Be Erased From The Covers Of Her Own Books. Chillingly, Radcliffe assures his readers that “nobody can touch” their experience of the books, implying that the unnamed, erased author has been purged entirely. How magnanimous of him. How inclusive.”

“I haven’t seen any complaint that Radcliffe fails to mention the trans men and nonbinary people who menstruate, or that he pretends not to know Rowling has already been fending off verbal attacks for years, or that he erases her name as he refers to “the books.” 

“Daniel Radcliffe seems to have forgotten Harry Potter began as an idea in J.K. Rowling’s head. But he wants “women” to be an idea in his own.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“In her YouTube video, Ms Keen-Minshull appealed to her supporters to help to fund more advertising sites for her “I love JK Rowling” campaign.