J.K. Rowling is best known for her imaginative storytelling in the beloved Harry Potter franchise. However, Rowling has recently come under fire for comments that seem to be denying the experience of trans women. These comments appeared on Twitter in response to an article that was using the phrase ‘people who menstruate.’ This is in line with trans activists encouraging more gender-neutral language when it comes to menstruation. Through using neutral language when discussing menstruation, it is more inclusive for trans men and non-binary people who were assigned as female at birth, and therefore have the biological organs that cause menstruation. Also, using gender-neutral language validates cis women who are unable to menstruate, and who are also highly affected by the intense gendering surrounding menstruation. Rowling took to social media and claimed that there was a word for people who menstruated, and seemed to be making jest that the article chose to not use the word women. 

This comment sparked controversy as it defines women as those who menstruate, thus solely women who are cis. Cis women are those who identify with the gender they are assigned at birth. Rowling seems to be denying trans women their womanhood and thus denying their experience as women. Rowling also does not include trans men and non-binary people in this conversation, and therefore I believe Rowling is simultaneously being harmful towards trans and non-binary people across the gender spectrum. As a cis woman, I cannot justifiably comment on the personal effect this would have had on trans women. But understandably, this has caused people from the transgender community a lot of pain, especially coming from someone who created such a beloved franchise. 

I believe this view is representative of a form of outdated feminism that places cis white women at the centre of their campaign. Rowling’s statement seems to oppose the intersectional feminism that aims to understand the complexities of how different women experience oppression. For example, a cisgender heterosexual white woman will experience oppression as a woman, but not on account of her race, sexuality, or her gender-identification: in these matters, she is privileged. 

Without understanding intersectionality, a blanket feminist statement does not have a liberating effect on all women, rather it can be an act of oppression. The burqa, for example, has often been seen as an oppressive symbol by western audiences, so much so that in 2009 the French Prime Minister outlawed the burqa, labelling it a ‘sign of debasement.’ But this movement failed to understand that for some women, the burqa was actually a sign of liberation that allowed women to leave their house. Without the burqa some women would not be permitted to go outside, as for them that would be against their understanding of their religion. In essence, a matter of ‘liberation’ from something that is viewed as wrong by western cultures, actually had the opposite effect on a certain demographic of women. Although this is not directly relevant to Rowling’s statements, it does give an understanding as to the importance of intersectionality, and ensuring liberation from different oppressions. 

At the core of intersectionality is a unity between women from different backgrounds, and a movement that does not place one demographic above another. In terms of Rowling, her comments have caused her to be labelled a TERF, which is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. These people are known to deny trans women’s experience, and place cis women at the centre of their consideration. Rowling commented on these accusations in a statement in which she outlined her experience as a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor, which in itself is a heartbreaking truth. But this outlines the core issue with non-intersectional feminism: the matter of putting one demographic down to boost another. 

Rowling’s comments arguably saw her put trans women down to elevate her own struggles, an example of women being pitted against each other. Rather than tackle the system which has caused them both different oppressions, Rowling chose to put the transwomen demographic down. As stated previously, I cannot personally comment on the experiences of trans women, but it is understandable that they will experience different forms of oppression and different struggles than that of a cis woman. But, this does not undermine the experience of Rowling, or any other woman, and should not be seen to do so. Feminism should not be used as a tool to elevate a certain woman’s trauma, but instead should be used to unite all women against systems that oppress them in different ways.

Instead of focusing on division, women should aim to work with other women to achieve an effective, mutually beneficial feminist movement. Perhaps rather than making a hurtful statement, Rowling should have looked to intellectually discuss her feelings, rather than assuming her experiences were in contention with the trans community. This would have worked to educate and further her understanding of transgender issues, making her a better feminist and a powerful ally. Feminism as a movement is vital for the protection and equality of all women, but there must be an emphasis on ‘all women’. If we were to consider intersectional feminism as a separate wave of feminism, Rowling is situated in an outdated wave that should not represent current movements. 

Trans women are women, and their experiences are valid. Feminists like myself need to work on adopting intersectional feminism and being an ally to trans women, rather than being an opposition.

_______________________________________________________________________

Like this story? See below for more from Comment:

Should Celebrities Share Their Political Opinions?

Politicians and Parenthood: The Double Standards

The Success of Female Leaders During Coronavirus