By Amelie Patel, Second Year, English Literature
TW – Potentially triggering information pertaining to the new Supreme Court legislation on the definition of a ‘woman’.
I remember visiting the Harry Potter Studios in 2016, and the rush of excitement that came with purchasing Hermione Granger’s wand in a store on Diagon Alley. Now, when I think of Harry Potter, the cruel, anti-transgender stance JK Rowling has taken over the past decade mires the picture.
Transgender rights in the UK have been hard won. After extensive activism the 2005 Gender Recognition Act allowed a trans person to have their preferred gender legally recognised through the Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
However, the last decade has seen a huge increase in anti-transgender sentiment into organised groups. In fact, the UK has gained the nickname ‘TERF Island’ - TERF standing for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. JK Rowling has spear-headed this movement, using social media notoriously to espouse her gender-critical views.
Surveying JK Rowling’s online footprint left me unexpectedly reeling. The rhetoric she continually employs on X is mocking, facetious, and cruel. In her 2020 essay she conveys the depth of her idiocy: whilst claiming to understand the trans community, she comes to the conclusion that if she had grown up in the 21st century, ‘I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.’ This blatant reduction of the transgender experience to a confession about her daddy issues (which no one asked for) is farcical.
J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues - J.K. Rowling
However, her comments can no longer be taken comically in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, which clarified the definition of a man and women in the 2010 Equality Act as based on biological sex, regardless of GRC certificates. This ruling fails to acknowledge gender-identity as a crucial consideration when regarding the definition of a ‘woman’. Its implications are extremely harmful for the trans community, whose basic rights such as access to their preferred toilet are in question. Detailed guidance is yet to be released on how this ruling will be affected in practice, leaving individuals anxious and uncertain.
Significantly, JK Rowling donated 70K to For Women Scotland, the organisation who brought the legal challenge on the definition of a women in the Equalities Act to the Supreme Court. She commented on their success on a social media post, stating ‘I love it when a plan comes together’, sparking further online animosity.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1912644919103004807
So, now I ask. Can we, in good conscience, continue to read the Harry Potter books? Is the solution, rather, to boycott them in an act of political solidarity? My childhood nostalgia for the series left me internally conflicted on the issue. I decided to reflect further before engaging in a ritual of book-burning of my well-worn copies of the books.
I remembered a text I read in my first year of university: Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author. Barthes suggests that like a father to his child, authors come before, and books after. He argues that trying to decipher a text according to its author imposes a limit on our reading experience. This is a convincing theoretical view; however, it feels hard to whole-heartedly embrace in the modern day when the said author's presence is ubiquitously harmful.
However, this discussion veers from the heart of the issue. Behind the boycott of JK Rowling’s literature lies Harry Potter, an admittedly one of a kind, inspiring and thrilling book series which continues to capture the hearts of millions of children today. Beyond the series, the expansive universe of the Wizarding World contains landmarks, characters and more which are an avid point of connection for fans. Just a brief look on Reddit reveals a thriving online community (of one many) where people have been uploading fan-art and contesting theories for years.
Moreover, the unfathomable joy and community the series brings to so many people is a huge factor to consider. If boycotting the series led to real benefits for the transgender community it would be a small sacrifice. However, I have to question if it is more an act of virtue-signalling than an impactful measure. Might our time be better spent in the pursuit of real action in aid of the trans community?
I now reach a conclusion (feel free to disagree). If, like me, you have grown up with the books and movies, I'd suggest you continue to enjoy your box sets and the like. However, if, like me, you feel anxious about the current state of transgender rights in the UK, I'd suggest you educate yourself on how you can be an ally to the trans community in a significant way.
For me, that was taking the first step when writing this article to research transgender history in the UK. This was admittedly a late step, but it is always better to educate yourself now rather than never. I'd also encourage you to have a conversation about the new legislation with your friends and family to digest its implications. If you crave tangible action, the best first step would be to read the letter @bristoldwsoc have written to the Bristol SU, which asks for clarification of their commitment to the Trans community. Read and sign here - Letter to Bristol SU regarding the recent Supreme Court Ruling. Finally, there are several organisations in Bristol you can check out, such as Bristol Crossroads, Trans Unite, OTR Bristol and Trans Aid Bristol.
If you are feeling anxious or concerned about the new Supreme Court legislation, there are several places you can reach out for support such as the Switchboard LGBT+ Helpline and Mindline Trans+ .
