J.K. Rowling And The Way Transgenderism Necessarily Allows For No Middle Ground

Over the weekend, Harry Potter author (and notable gay-rights activist) J.K. Rowling got into some hot water for some comments made on Twitter which many have called transphobic. 

These comments pertained to transgender men (i.e. biological women who identify as men) and the matter of whether or not only women can menstruate. Rowling declared her belief that this is the case ("People Who Can Menstruate").

Of course, from a biological standpoint, it is true that only women menstruate. Men do not. The only possible dispute one might make is in the case of those who are intersex, born with some degree of both male and female anatomy. However, even then, menstruation is recognized as a biological female attribute that the person has (part of what defines them as intersex), not a unisex one (like having eyes or a spinal cord).

The reason this is of any controversy at all is because transgender men consider themselves to be men, yet have female bodies that still perform the functions of female bodies (especially early on in the gender transition process). This means that there are people who menstruate (and occasionally even bear children) who identify as men.

This, of course, raises one of the most enormous worldview and societal questions of our time (at least in western society): is gender determined by biological sex or not?

No Middle Ground Because Consistency Leads To Extremes

That grand question is not my focus here today (although I don't shy away from the fact that I hold the traditional view that biological sex determines gender). 

Instead, the point I am arguing here is something that one can affirm regardless of which side they are on when it comes to what gender is (and many on the other side do affirm this point, in practice if not explicitly):

Transgenderism leaves no room for gray areas or middle ground. 

There is no partially affirming transgender identity. You're either all in or you are a transphobe - at least by the standards set by those who believe in transgender ideology.

In certain small, specific situations this may not apply. For example, one can at least argue that you can be fully supportive and affirming of transgender identity and still believe that there should be a minimum age for children or teenagers to begin physically transitioning (in order to make sure they know what they are getting into and are not just trying to be cool).

But for the most part, those who go to what many consider to be extremes are just being consistent. You really can't say anything against them without opposing their belief in the legitimacy of transgender ideology entirely.

In this case, believing that men can menstruate is not even an extreme position to hold once you have accepted the belief that biological sex does not determine gender. It's really pretty moderate. If you affirm the identity of trans people, then you agree that someone can be a man yet have a female body that does what female bodies do.

J.K. Rowling's problem is that on the one hand, she says that she has supports trans people, yet on the other hand, she mocks the idea that a man can menstruate. Those two things are incompatible.

They are incompatible because if a biological woman can truly be a man (i.e. a transgender man), and biological women can menstruate (which no one disputes), then it follows that men can menstruate. If you say that only women menstruate, then you are saying that transgender men are really women (and therefore, not actually men).

Rowling also made comments about the importance of biological sex, including the assertion that "erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives" ("If sex isn’t real").

Rowling doubling down further shows the inconsistency within her beliefs. Her comments regarding biological sex seem to imply that completely cutting off gender from biological sex is a problem. But transgenderism requires that biological sex does not determine your gender. If biological sex did determine your gender, then you could not have people who are unambiguously biological males (or females) yet are truly genuinely women (or men, respectively) in terms of gender. 

This isn't a conservative strawman argument. Those calling Rowling transphobic are just being consistent because, whether she means to or not, she is saying to all transgender men that they are not really men.

Moderation is Based on Inconsistency and Misunderstanding

I think a lot of people who try to be moderate and ride the middle don't fully grasp the fact that transgender people genuinely consider themselves to be the gender that they identify as. 

They aren't just transvestites  They don't think of it as pretend. And they don't "become" another gender, as though a transgender man was a woman until she had surgery and then he became a man. Even before her first shot of testosterone, he was a man with a vagina. They use the term "born in the wrong body" because they actually think they were born in the wrong body (i.e. born as the wrong sex for their gender).

For many who consider themselves trans-affirming but do not go all the way with it, I think there is a real sense in which they want to live and let live. They want people who are transgender to be happy. And so they think that as long as they don't physically assault people who identify as transgender or deny them jobs, they are being inclusive and not transphobic.

But it is not enough to live and let live. To be affirming, to not be considered transphobic, you must actually treat and regard transgender individuals as the gender they identify as. To that person, their gender identity is the God's honest truth. To affirm a transgender man, you must treat that transgender man as a real, genuine man who just happened to have been born with XX sex chromosomes and a female reproductive system that results in menstruation.

How This Plays Out In Practice

In numerous discussions I have had online, I have had the following experience experience: 

First, I point out how it follows that if transgenderism is true, anything that associates human biology with gender becomes transphobic (e.g. baby gender reveals, the formerly progressive play called The Vagina Monologues, limiting women's sports to just biological women). Then, I am then told that I am making up a strawman. Then I cite examples of those on the other side of the debate saying the exact same things as me (e.g. Carlson; Dockray' Winter; Mulhere; Medley & Sherwin). 

The conversation usually ends at that point.

Ultimately, in a society where many practices and institutions are split up by gender, boy and girl, man and female, there really only exist three options:

1. Eliminate gender divisions (no gendered bathrooms, gendered prisons, gendered sports, gendered locker rooms or dorms or universities or anything else).

2. Base gendered institutions on the gender the person identifies as.

3. Deny the gender identity of trans people and base any gender-divided institution on biological sex.

Insofar as you do not practice #1, you must do either #2 or #3. However, for the most part, #2 and #3 are incompatible if you want to do a combination of both.

Is a transgender woman a real woman or not? If she is, then you have to treat her as such in all cases (and therefore only do #2). Otherwise, you are discriminating against transgender women because you claim that you believe they are real women, but you treat them differently (and more restrictively) than cisgender women. 

And if he is not a real woman, then why would you treat him as such in any cases? Why would you not do #3 for all remaining gendered institutions and practices?

Some might counter that some gender divisions were instituted on the premise that biological sex and gender are the same thing, so doing #2 but occasionally dividing by biological sex is appropriate. For example, you might say we don't want biological boys to shower with biological girls at your middle school or high school, regardless of how they identify. After all, hormones do what they do. Discrimination, in this case, would be justified. 

The problem with that logic is that just about every gendered institution or practice was based on that premise. The concern was never about people of the same biological sex showering and living together if some of them identify as something else. Gender divisions were always put in place to segregate members of the opposite sex. These things long precede any level of mainstream acceptance of transgenderism, often by centuries or even millenia.

Transgender Girls In Girls Sports

The sports question is especially important, as many who consider themselves moderate but still trans-affirming think that letting biological males compete in sports against biological women is a bridge too far. They will point out that biological men have natural advantages over women in terms of strength, speed, bone and muscle mass, etc. Therefore, transgender women have a natural advantage and it would not be fair to place them against cisgender women.

But those who take this attitude are not being consistent. Some cisgender girls, born as a females, are born with genes and a body type much more conducive to the given sport. Girls who grow to 6'5" in high school didn't work hard to get that tall; they just have the genes that put them in a better position than their 5'2" classmates for sports like basketball and volleyball.

And yet, you don't penalize them for having been born with genetics that make their bodies bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than their competitors. That would not be fair.

Therefore, to single out trans women is a textbook case of unjustified discrimination. You already said that both cisgender and transgender women are both actually, genuinely women. Therefore, by your logic and worldview, you are holding transgender women to a different standard than cisgender women. Cisgender women don't get disqualified for having been born in a body that, when properly conditioned, gets stronger and more athletically capable than the average woman. So why should transgender women, if they are really women, be disqualified for the body they were born in through no choice of their own?

Principles Apply To Both Transgender Men and Trangender Women

Granted, J.K. Rowling was talking about transgender men, not transgender women. But the same principles apply across the board. Either your body determines your gender, or it doesn't. And if you say that it does, then you have just invalidated the identity of every transgender person on earth because most transgender people, like most people in general, are not intersex. There is no ambiguity as to their sex. There is no ambiguity to whether they have XX or XY chromosomes. The doctors had no trouble identifying what belonged on their birth certificate. But to a transgender person, none of that really matters. It can't matter. If it did matter, then how could that biological girl say she really is a man?

Conclusion

If you are going to say you affirm transgender identity and are not transphobic, you need to make sure that every belief you have does not have the implication that gender is tied to biological sex, since doing so means that transgender women are not truly women and transgender men are not really men. 

You can no longer say that having babies is something unique and special to being women. You cannot say that those young women can't compete in track against your daughter just because they were born as boys (especially if they have transitioned and proven they were serious). Don't even think about attending a gender reveal party.

LGBT+ and progressive voices are not being hysterical when they say those sorts of things. They are being consistent with their beliefs. We all need to start being consistent with our beliefs on this matter, whatever they are.

There is no way to play the middle here. You can wave rainbows, support employment laws, and complement trans womens' dresses and trans mens' beards until the cows come home. But how can you say you really affirm someone's identity if you don't actually believe their identity to be objectively true?

Works Cited

- @jk_rowling. “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.” Twitter, 6 Jun 2020, 3:02 p.m., https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952.

- @jk_rowling. “People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.” Twitter, 6 Jun. 2020, 2:35 p.m., https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313.

- Carlson, Daniel. “What ‘Gender Reveals’ Really Reveal.” Psychology Today, 12 Jun. 2018. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-chore-chart/201806/what-gender-reveals-really-reveal. Accessed 8 Jun. 2020.

- Dockray, Heather. “Gender Reveals are Awful. (Trans)gender Reveals Are a different story.” Mashable, 6 Apr. 2019, https://mashable.com/article/transgender-reveal-party/. Accessed 8 Jun. 2020.

- Mulhere, Kaitlin. “A Student Group at A Women's College Has Retired Its Annual Production of the Vagina Monologues in Favor Of A Production That Will Be More Inclusive Of Transgender Students.” Inside Higher Ed, 21 Jul. 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/21/womens-college-cancels-play-saying-it-excludes-transgender-experiences. Accessed 8 June 2010.

- Winter, Jessica. “Are You a Boy or a Girl?” Slate. 5 May 2016, https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celebrations-for-babies-help-explain-transphobia.html. Accessed 8 Jun. 2020.