Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team
In recent days, the news in the United Kingdom has again been full of gender. This time the trigger was the fact that Harry Potter writer and feminist J.K. Rowling had deliberately “misgendered” a well-known transgender TV personality, India Willoughby.
In other words: Rowling spoke of Willoughby using the pronouns(pronouns) “he/him,” even though she is a trans woman. Willoughby accused Rowling of violating the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act and reported the matter to the police.
Based on our Formal Gender Theory (FGT, see gender-theory.org), we map out the various aspects of the clash between Rowling and Willoughby, as this can be illuminating for people who follow the gender debate from a somewhat greater distance. We therefore list 12 points that struck us:
1. Willoughby can claim laws against discrimination
Willoughby went from being a man to being a woman around 2015 and went through the surgical and medical procedures that go along with that. Under UK law, this makes her a woman even though she was born male(assigned male at birth, or AMAB). Willoughby can thus claim within the laws of the United Kingdom to be treated as a woman. We see no reason to remark on that state of affairs.
2. Rowling engages in deliberate “misgendering”
When, as has now happened, Rowling does not use the pronouns “she/her” at Willoughby’s direction when that is Willoughby’s preference, that is deliberate misgendering. There is nothing to argue with that either. Rowling made the misgendering, by the way, in a series of posts on X in which she expressed herself in a generally scornful and disrespectful way about Willoughby and her trans-ness.
]3. Rowling’s position is trans-exclusive
Rowling gives as arguments for her “misgendering” that Willoughby would “just be a man now.” Here she takes a position on gender similar to the position of radical feminists (TERF, see blog AGTRT-BF43) and fundamentalist Christians (TEFC, see blog AGTRT-BF44). That position can be summed up as, “once a man, always a man.” This is a trans-exclusive position, or one that is exclusive to transgender people, which we ourselves explicitly do not support.
4. Rowling’s position seems to be hardening
In AGTRT-BF12, we argued that while Rowling is “gender-critical” from her feminist beliefs, she is not trans-exclusive. That is, she has for some years been critical of excesses of trans activism in which she sees a threat to the achievements of feminist struggle. But she is not generally opposed to transgendering. We still hold the view that Rowling is basically “moderately” critical of transgendering, as it is clear from her past writings. At the same time, that position does now become more difficult to maintain: Rowling’s position seems to be hardening.
5. Willoughby falsely claims she was always a woman
Willoughby claims she was always a woman, even prior to her gender transition consisting of surgery and hormone treatment. In doing so, Willoughby explicitly takes a co-essentialist position (see gender-theory.org). Actually, Willoughby sees it that the assignment of male at birth (AMAB: assigned male at birth) was already a form of miscegenation.
Her gender would have been female from the beginning, and the actions she took ten years ago would only clarify and accentuate what was already the case. So she did not actually experience a gender transition in her own eyes, because she was always a woman. Indeed, the idea of a gender transition is debatable in her eyes.
We see transgender as a term that should not be taken too literally. This involves a transition of legal gender(legal gender), and therefore not physical gender. We do not support co-essentialism: we believe that to claim womanhood only on the basis of introspection is too weak a basis for it.
6. Willoughby also contributes to polarization
Willoughby thus uses her position as a transgender media personality to reinforce a controversial position (co-essentialism). Those who then criticize this quickly run the risk of being called transphobic. So viewed in this way, Willoughby also contributes to the polarization around this case, and around the discussion of gender and transgender in general.
7. A precarious legal situation has arisen
Rowling uses a problematic tool: deliberate misgendering of a person with female legal gender. She does so in a debate with Willoughby that is nevertheless essentially about something other than Willoughby’s gender, namely how women’s rights are threatened by radical trans activism.
Willoughby reported misgendering and held Rowling accountable. Willoughby sees herself as a woman by virtue of her gender identity but that is an argument that Rowling does not recognize and, according to UK law, is not currently required to recognize.
However, a precarious legal situation has arisen. Because when it gets to court, Willoughby can defend herself by other means: the point that her legal status as a woman must be respected can be legally solidified.
8. Rowling rightly objects to “gender identity first”
In particular, it is the view of gender of co-essentialism that Rowling objects to. This view can be summarized as “gender identity first”: the idea that how a person identifies himself or herself should always guide the gender that person is assigned (see AGTRT-M1, AGTRT-M5, among others).
According to Rowling, this undermines the guarantee and security that physical safe spaces (women’s toilets, women’s locker rooms, etc.) have long provided to women. Indeed, this way it is impossible to distinguish between people who actually have gender dysphoria and those who pretend to be transgender for other (sometimes perhaps even malignant) motives. We endorse this critique of co-essentialism.
9. Rowling’s hardening comes from somewhere
Rowling has been facing all kinds of solid attacks from radical and co-essentialist trans activism for years. As a result, Rowling has faced striking forms of cancel culture and hefty (and, in our view, unjustified) reputational damage. It is plausible that this led to a hardening of Rowling’s stance. This does make Rowling’s stance palpable, even if her position that Willoughby is not a woman is legally, and as far as we are concerned, “humanly,” incorrect.
10. Conflicts like between Rowling and Willoughby are unnecessary
We indicated in AGTRT-BF34, AGTRT-BF38 and AGTRT-BF55 what a MotR(middle of the road) notion of gender might look like that could be acceptable to both parties as a compromise. We developed formal gender theory (FGT) based on the belief that a precise handling of gender theory can help eliminate conflicts like the one between Rowling and Willoughby.
11. Academic gender theorists are silent while social debate derails, or even deepens polarization
We are struck by the fact that from the corner of academic gender theory in the Netherlands comes language still signaling on current issues. Surely it seems essential for scientists in particular to speak out to make sense of extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum and to shape more moderate and substantive discussions.
Not only are most gender scholars silent, but those who do not seem, without exception, to take a radical co-essentialist position themselves. For example, we could read recently in the media that UvA professor Sarah Bracke (gender & sexuality) considers co-essentialism as certain as the claim that the earth is not flat (The Green in 2023, see also AGTRT-BA12 and AGTRT-BF10).
UvA professor Jan-Willem Duyvendak (general sociology, specializing among other things in gay emancipation), moreover, compares the question of the recognition of transgenderism one-to-one with the recognition of homosexuality, without any regard for the fact that these are two very different groups, each of which is treading a very different path to emancipation (NRC in 2023, see also AGTRT-BF5).
In our view, these are both eminently misleading and essentially populist comparisons that only create ambiguity and confusion for LGBI individuals and trans people alike.
12. Proponents of gender transition will have to enter the arena with arguments
One of our goals was to develop and continually make explicit arguments on the basis of which, at least in some circumstances, gender transition is plausible and should be acceptable. In the strikingly arrogant and self-centered academic community of Dutch gender theory, it seems to be thought that this all goes without saying, but it certainly does not.
Criticism of transgenderism is growing worldwide, and a confrontation with that criticism is becoming inevitable. Instead of making people leave who want to have that debate (as happened in the UvA), relevant scientists should decide to participate precisely with arguments.
Leave a Reply