At what point do we notice the misogyny of transactivism?
by Lorenzo Warby, from Helen Dale substack:
Writing biological womanhood out of the social script can only be done by systematically devaluing the inconvenient perspectives (and achievements) of women.
The New York Times has recently started marketing itself with a campaign that includes the caption “Imagining Harry Potter Without Its Creator”.
Harry Potter is a male fictional character. The Harry Potter fictional universe is an it. Both of them have a creator, and she is J. K. Rowling.
So, why would stripping a fictional universe of its creator be something to imagine? Even, it appears, to celebrate? Well, because J K Rowling takes the view — which was a pretty universal view until very, very recently — that women are adult human females and they can be, and sometimes need to be, distinguished from adult human males, also known as men.
If this were done in any other cause other than transactivism, would it be progressively acceptable to parse without comment stripping history’s most commercially successful author from her creation?
Writing such phenomenally successful books and creating a fictional world beloved by so many millions around the world is a striking achievement. A striking achievement by a woman (indeed, a single mother). But an achievement that is now apparently better, even laudable, to imagine away. For the author is no longer the right sort of woman.
Meanwhile, someone born with, even continuing to possess, a penis who declares themselves to be trans is absolutely the right sort of woman.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
