(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



J.K. Rowling vs. certain progressive moralists [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2022-07-24

Yesterday morning I decided, for no particular reason, to do some Googling about when the term “cancel culture” began to become popular. No ulterior motive; just curiosity. But in the course of my reading, I was reminded of the J.K. Rowling controversy, so I reviewed that. And it reminded me that people of apparently Progressive leanings sometimes can be just as guilty of moralizing, over-simplifying, and over-reacting as Christian Fundamentalists can. Because one thing they both have in common is that they are both human, and over-simplifying is something that humans do.

Now, when I speak of Progressives who “moralize” I mean it in the sense of, when coming across an opinion that they don’t like, they (not all, of course, or even most, but a few) immediately attack it in fiery moralistic terms rather than pausing to see whether the opinion might actually have some merit that is worth discussing, or at least have enough inherent plausibility that it deserves a thoughtful rebuttal rather than an emotional explosion.

For example, if I hear a conservative say “I don’t approve of government handouts because handouts make people lazy and dependent, and do more harm than good,” I recognize that argument as having at least the appearance of being reasonable, so I will gladly take the time (if the other person is willing to listen) to explain why the argument seems reasonable, but does not actually match with reality. I will not respond with “If you believe that, you are a horrible, hate-filled person and you disgust me!” (They might be, but I will not start out by assuming it.)

So, what about J.K Rowling and her infamous tweets? Well, I started by looking up the tweet that started it. It was Rowling’s Twitter response to a 2020 op-ed piece. Here is the title of the op-ed, and Rowling’s reply:

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate Rowling: ‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

OK, perhaps she could have been more serious and less flippant in making her point (after all, tone of voice does matter). But her point was why do you feel it necessary to replace the word “woman” with a “gender-neutral” phrase? Why, indeed? Personally, I see nothing at all that I disagree with (except possibly the flippancy, but that’s just a case of “I wouldn’t have done it that way,” and judging other people for doing things differently than I would have done them is always a bad idea.)

Bottom line: there is nothing really wrong with Rowling’s initial tweet. But she immediately started catching hell over it because (as I see it) some people were reading more into the tweet than Rowling intended to say. And rather than back down, she had the temerity to actually stand her ground. This infuriated her attackers even more.

Later she posted this:

I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this tweet. Now, if your personal opinion is different from hers and you want to say so—respectfully!—then by all means do so. But to get out the pitchforks and torches over it is not justified at all. The only thing I see in the tweet is Rowling arguing against the abolishing of the words “woman” and “female.” And if anybody wants to argue that gender words really are wrong and need to be abolished, I would counter that pushing against excesses in gender reference does not require the complete abolishing of gender references.

And just to underscore how people respond without sufficient thought, Daniel Radcliffe joined in with this:

I feel compelled to say something at this moment. Transgender women are women.

Um, that actually supports what Rowling was saying to begin with. Her initial tweet had nothing to do with transgender women at all; it had to do with the word “woman.” And Radcliffe here is agreeing with Rowling’s argument that the word “woman” is a legitimate word. Remember, her initial tweet was an objection to the replacement of the term “woman” with the term “people who menstruate” (which, by the way, would exclude Walter/Wendy Carlos, one of my favorite composers because of Switched On Bach and the soundtrack to Tron).

In more recent times I have seen another kerfuffle caused by somebody substituting gender-neutral language for “mother.” In trying to recover the exact reference, I found this instead:

In February 2021, Australian National University updated its Gender Institute Handbook to offer new words for 'mother' and 'father.' Newscorp reports the handbook urges people wanting to refer to mums and dads to say 'gestational parent' instead of mother and 'non-birthing parent' instead of father when talking to colleagues and students. "While many students will identify as 'mothers' or 'fathers,’ using these terms alone to describe parenthood excludes those who do not identify with gender-binaries," the book states.

and:

Also in February 2021, UK health officials have asked nurses at two hospitals to substitute [sic] the term 'breast milk' for 'chest milk' or 'human milk' in an effort to be more inclusive to trans and non-binary parents. 'Breastfeeding' will instead be referred to as 'chestfeeding'.

Do I accept these ANU suggestions as legitimate attempts to do the right thing? Yes, I am open-minded enough to take the suggestions seriously and think about them. But after thinking about them, do I agree that the suggested solution is the right solution? No, I do not. As much as some people (science fiction writers, in particular) may be frustrated at the apparent unfairness of having two sexes with vastly different and unequal biological roles, that difference is an objective reality, not a social construct. The fact that the difference in the past has been unfairly exaggerated (mostly to the detriment of women) does not mean that the right solution is to pretend that there is no real difference between the sexes at all. (If there truly were no important difference, then there would be no logical reason not to require major league sports to allow anybody who can get the job done to play, while simultaneously abolishing “women’s” leagues.)

And that brings me to another thought:

I have been noticing for a while that in the effort to achieve gender fairness, the actual result often seems to be making things worse. For starters, there is the assumption, often unspoken, but sometimes said right out loud, that women can be just as good as men.

What?? How is it logical to fight against “male supremacy” by using “male” as the standard to be achieved?? Yet that seems to be what is happening, as we watch countless examples of movie and TV entertainment that feature female characters who can fight just as well as (or, usually, better than) men. Natasha Romanoff. Rita Vrataski. Katniss Everdeen. All of the ‘Dora Milaje.’ Wonder Woman. Alita “Battle Angel.” Valkyrie. Captain Marvel. Ziva David. Xena. All of them defined in part or in whole by their warrior prowess. Such role models not only might make things worse for young women and girls struggling with their body image (besides being warriors, all those women are beautiful, too), it actually sets an impossible standard, since it is very rarely possible for a woman, no matter how well trained, to outfight a comparably conditioned and trained man. Even Venus Williams, one of the best female tennis players ever, admitted near her peak that she might rank around 200 if she played against men (and once lost a challenge match to a man ranked 203 at the time, Karsten Braasch).

At least in the “bad ol’ days” of blatant male supremacy, men at least spoke with praise of the things that women generally can do better than men, particularly in regard to motherhood and raising children. But now motherhood itself frequently seems to be disparaged, especially if marriage and motherhood ever appears to be the primary goal of a woman. Hillary Clinton at least apologized for her unintended gaffe that seemed to disparage “stay home and bake cookies” moms. But now (in some quarters, at least) there seem to be some who really do disparage the choice to be a “non-working” wife, as though it isn’t enough that women have the right to pursue a career if they choose, but that they have an obligation to.

Bottom line: women should have the right and the freedom to follow whatever life path they want to follow. And certainly any woman who is doing the same thing that a man is doing should get the same reward, especially in regard to pay. But to go too far, and to emotionally and without scientific support argue that there is no real difference between men and women, is both irrational and self-defeating, both because it plays right into the hands of right-wing bigots who really do still believe that a woman’s place is under the authority of a man, and because it may serve to hurt the very women it is meant to help.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/24/2096507/-J-K-Rowling-vs-certain-progressive-moralists

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/