Around the turn of the year, J. K. Rowling was once again the object of ire on social media. This most recent backlash came after she took to X—formerly known as Twitter—to say that no child is born in the wrong body. It was, for those unacquainted with the years-long controversy surrounding Rowling, her latest criticism of transgender ideology. Admittedly this is a veritable hornet’s nest in our age, which Rowling has stirred up on many occasions. For the time being, I’d rather not be stung. So the aim of this doodle is simply to single out two of the broader and most common criticisms levelled against the much beloved and despised author of Harry Potter.

An Abundance of Ad Hominem Attacks

Before getting to those, many of the comments on social media revealed the regrettable readiness with which people resort to hateful ad hominem attacks online. Skimming the comments of just two articles on Facebook provided me with an almost complete catalogue insults, proving you have nothing meaningful to say. Rowling was singled out for being: old, a terrible author, ignorant, arrogant, mentally unstable, stupid, the “mould lady”, and—my personal favourite—a Holocaust denier.

Two broader lines of the ad hominem approach are worthy of special mention. The first pointed out the apparent irony that Rowling has had a host of plastic surgeries, apparently. Because, well, we all know nip-tucks are comparable to puberty blocking and reassignment surgeries. The second reduced Rowling’s opinions to nothing more than a desperate grab for public attention. Of course, she’s only one of the most famous authors alive and simultaneously a deliberatively private person. But sure, “she had to get political because no one cared about her shitty books.” Yawn.

Now let’s now turn to two other prevalent criticisms that appear—at least initially—considerable push back against Rowling’s views on transgenderism.

1. Rowling Should Stick to Writing Stories

One commenter on Facebook writes, “She could be releasing more content about her world, introducing us to new characters and stories. Alas, this is what she chooses to spend her time and energy doing. Such a shame.” When last I looked, J. K. Rowling, not some disgruntled fan, was queen of Hogwarts. Thus it’s entirely up to her whether she develops the world she created along with its inhabitants. But there’s a subtle jab here, too, a barely veiled put down. It says that our world would be better off if J. K. Rowling focused on her fictional one.

On one hand, I sympathise with the sentiment; only, let me explain. Upon finishing the seven Harry Potter novels I found in myself a desire that no other book could satisfy—I even read The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Much to my disappointment, together with millions of other readers, Rowling never truly took us back to Hogwarts. Yes, I’m aware of the Fantastic Beasts films; I just wish I wasn’t. Anyway, most fans of the Wizarding World would be lining up overnight to buy another book about the boy who lived. How else do we explain the veritable torrents of embarrassingly bad fan fiction and its large audience?

But let’s get back to matter at hand. Should Rowling devote her writing efforts to stories? That’s entirely up to her. Though, perhaps something else should be tentatively added. In my experience, readers of fantasy love to get lost in those works; they’re often used for escapism. So I’m left wondering if this criticism might be an indirect way of stating one’s preference for make-believe rather than the real world.

2. Rowling Isn’t Qualified to Address These Issues

By far the most repeated—and slightly less rabid—critique of J. K. Rowling points out that, “she isn’t even qualified on the subject. She’s only an author. She needs to keep her nose out of things she really doesn’t understand.” Now I always love it when people commenting on social media threads cry foul concerning someone else’s qualifications. Does this commenter have a PhD? Do they quietly refrain from speaking on subjects they haven’t studied at a tertiary level? Added to that, when is someone even qualified to address transgenderism? The wider consensus is that most university courses in gender studies and theory are equal parts laughable and lamentable.

But there’s a bigger issue at stake her: instead of engaging with Rowling’s position, her critics prefer to discredit her a priori, without the needing to examine her arguments. Thus one commenter posed what they felt was a “serious question”: “A fiction writer—am I supposed to listen to her because she’s rich?” Similarly, “I consider her views on this to be equally important to Stephen King’s or any other celebrity. They’re worth exactly what I paid to have to see them.” The astonishing irony here is just how much we value the position of celebrities, until they disagree with us. Fortunately the likes of Elliot Page, Daniel Radcliffe, Beyoncé, and Miley Cyrus are such accomplished, widely respected intellectuals.

Online jurors like to present this as a case of fiction against science, when in reality it’s a clash of famous people. As someone asked: “Why do people keep taking an author of fiction like J. K. Rowling seriously?” To that question I’d want to ask: why we take Ellen DeGeneres or Oprah Winfrey seriously? Because despite the shrilly stated preference for “scientific research,” doctors, therapists and “people with specialised knowledge of psychology,” the greatest champion of transgender ideology is undoubtedly Hollywood.

Expelliarmus

Forgive me, my doodles are typically shorter; and well done for making it this far. You may not agree with J. K. Rowling. In fact, I know many people find her continued resistance infuriating and insulting. In the end, you’re welcome to disagree. Just, please don’t do so using the lazy, intellectually impoverished and tired old criticisms above.