The sexist crusade against JK Rowling

The witch-hunting of Rowling for saying sex is real is fuelled by a nasty woke misogyny.

Brendan O'Neill

I see the woke lobby has taken a break from saying ‘black lives matter’ to launch yet another misogynistic crusade against JK Rowling. She’s pure scum, a cunt, a bitch. What awful crime has she committed to deserve these ceaseless insults? She said women menstruate. She stated a biological truth. So deranged has political correctness and trans correctness become that you can now be witch-hunted for saying menstruation is a female phenomenon.

Rowling has been sceptical of some of the claims made by the transgender lobby for quite a while. In the eyes of the trans thoughtpolice this makes her a ‘TERF’, which literally means ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, but really it is wielded as a misogynistic insult. It’s a variation on the word witch. It means bad woman, hysterical woman, fallen woman. Light the matches!

Rowling’s latest TERF thoughtcrime was to question the headline to an article that said: ‘Creating a more equal post-Covid-19 world for people who menstruate.’ Rowling responded on Twitter: ‘”People who menstruate.” I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?’ Which is pretty funny. Except to the humourless enforcers of correct-think on gender, of course. To them, Rowling’s words were evil (she’s worse than Voldemort and Draco Malfoy, yada yada). Her words will cause significant hatred and harm against trans people, they said. This is the kind of censorious emotional blackmail we’ve come to expect from the intolerant: ‘If you express your views, people will die.’

The reason sexist, dehumanising phrases like ‘people who menstruate’ are used these days is to avoid saying ‘women’. The word women has become almost verboten in discussions about gender. Indeed, sticking with the Harry Potter theme, as so many of the sexist shamers of Rowling love to do, saying ‘women’ is fast becoming the equivalent of saying ‘Voldemort’: it’s a taboo, and if you break it, terrible things will happen.

The word woman even comes with an X through it sometimes – ‘womxn’ – indicating how unacceptable it has become to utter this frightful noun. In 2018 the Wellcome Trust hosted an event that it said was aimed at ‘womxn’. Cancer Research removed the word women from its smear-test campaign, replacing it with ‘anyone with a cervix’. In right-thinking circles you’ll even hear phrases like ‘cervix-havers’.

Why is the word ‘woman’ being so studiously erased by the PC set in favour of speaking about women almost as if they are animals (cervix-havers, menstruators)? It’s because nothing must ever be done to offend the infinitesimally small number of men who identify as women but of course do not have women’s bodies (trans women), or women who identify as men and who still menstruate but do not believe that they are women (trans men). This is how bonkers trans ideology is becoming: the entirety of womanhood, the very word woman, must be expunged from decent society in case it upsets men who think they’re women and women who think they’re men. Those individuals’ fantasies take precedence over women’s realities. Know your place, women – sorry, I mean cervix-possessors.

Rowling is absolutely right to say this is sexist, to say that subjugating the language and experience of womanhood to the needs and sensitivities of the trans lobby is anti-women. As she points out, if we don’t talk about sex, if we stop believing that there are such things as men and women and that they are physically different, then we erase womanhood, and with it women’s sex-based rights. ‘If sex isn’t real, the lived experience of women globally is erased’, Rowling said in response to her spitting, raging detractors yesterday. She is correct. But in the Orwellian world of gender self-ID, where people are what they say they are and woe betide any heretic who questions them, Rowling is nothing short of Satanic.

It is really important to defend biological truth, the reality of sex, and the language of male and female that humanity has been using since it has been able to communicate. These things are real, and they have real meaning, too. We cannot bury truth to satisfy the delusions of small numbers of people who believe they are literally women, or literally men, when we all know that they are not. This war on reality, this mangling of truth and speech and understanding, must be confronted. To coin a phrase, women’s lives matter, despite what woke misogynists might say to the contrary.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are – 14 weeks into Britain’s three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldn’t have done that without your support. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Ward Anthony

13th June 2020 at 6:45 am

The Harry Potter books were published under the name J K Rowling because it was thought that the target audience might not want to read a book written by a woman and there’s a long history of such conceits. The renowned Australian writer Ethel Richardson published under the name Henry Handel Richardson and Amantine Dupin, one of the most successful writers of the Romantic era, used the pseudonym George Sand. There must be innumerable other examples across all walks of life of the strategies and decoys women have resorted to because they are women.

On the other hand, I’d bet my male privilege that if the Potter books were written by a trans-woman the name on the cover would be JOANNE, because dysphoria is contingent on that external, public affirmation. This, people, is the difference. There can be no equality. Women do not share a ‘lived’ experience, history or culture with trans-women. Period.

PS, I subscribe to the Sydney Morning Herald but wouldn’t publish this comment.

Ward Anthony

13th June 2020 at 3:29 pm

That should be THEY wouldn’t publish the comment. The moderation on Fairfax media is an embarrassment.

Dave Jones

9th June 2020 at 1:12 pm

So, currently, we are being told to believe, under the title of “misogynists” we have:
– People motivated by gender equality, that recognise men’s rights, and women’s rights, dislike male and female chauvinism, criticised feminism for decades, and never lost faith that biological sex might have had some basis in science
– The *main body of modern feminism* .. i.e. many well meaning, but dogmatic, faithfully indoctrinated woke inter-sectional feminists
– Men that hate women

And “non-misogynists”:

{who believe almost everything, and just as passionately, that the woke inter-sectional feminists believe – but with one exception, they now want proclaim biological sex real again for convenience. They’ve had all possible civilisation distorting use out of it, both rightly and wrongly, but now it’s being used to benefit (indoctrinated and vulnerable) biological men, at women’s expense, who, egged on by their previously unquestionable ideology, are confused about their gender. And In addition biological women set free to enter the vaunted world of “male privilege” but expose the promise as a lie when they almost always find life harder, precisely when successfully passing as a man, and subsequently}

Something doesn’t add up.
I think you’re going to need a different smear word.
I’d still rather be in one of the groups under the TERF derived “misogynist” label any day of the week.

Dave Jones

9th June 2020 at 9:10 pm

The word that could help in some of these categorisations, if applied honestly, rather than a baseless smear, is “misandrist”. Apply that, fairly, and see where you end up. Do the same with “misogynist” but fairly too, and TERFs might gain an ounce of credibility towards the claim of “gender equality”. They’ll have to admit their misandry though, so I won’t hold my breath. Sure, some woke intersectional transwomen probably are acting with a new sense of misogyny, after all they’ve learned misandry from the best, and now this is what *equality of hypocrisy* looks like, a truly progressive new form of feminist equality. Perhaps we can get back to the idea that the sexes are vitally different, but should be treated with equal sympathy, respect, and concern for both of their legitimate rights and issues. Same with anyone else too, not fitting into these basic biological categories, so that neither tramples on anthers human rights, or creates and overlooks the issues of others without a care in the world, or indeed those of children, families and society.

Dave Jones

9th June 2020 at 9:41 pm

And, one last point – maybe we can get back to perusing equality of opportunity across the board. Rather than the viscerally illiberal, anti-egalitarian, widely perused/enforced equality of *outcome* – solely when it’s in women’s benefit to do so – but (rightly, due to something called “consistency”) not even entertained when it would end up in men’s benefit. Pursuing equality of outcome across the board is well meaning, but dangerous, illiberal utopianism. Selectively enforced (and unchallengeable) equality of outcome is totalitarianism.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.