By Charles Hilu
Saturday, July 16, 2022
Coalitions can be messy things. That principle was
on full display in a recent argument on Twitter between author J. K. Rowling
and the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh over whether they can unite on the
subject of transgender ideology. It began with Walsh calling out “women who
publicly renounce the definition of ‘woman’ for fear of mean comments.” Rowling
responded directly to him by detailing the kind of harassment women online get
from radicals, including doxing, loss of livelihood, and death and rape
threats. These, she said, go far beyond “mean comments.”
Conservative sports writer Jason Whitlock then admonished
Rowling for attacking Walsh, who has been a leader in the movement against
transgenderism, with efforts such as his recent documentary What Is a Woman? Rowling told Whitlock
that, while she admires Walsh’s efforts, “a shared belief that women exist as a
biological class . . . does not an ally make.” Rowling denounced Walsh for his
opposition to her brand of feminism.
Whenever people with fundamentally different worldviews
unite on behalf of a common goal, infighting is bound to occur. The people
within the coalition have different reasons for joining. Conservatives oppose
transgenderism principally because it denies reality, harms women and girls,
and forces mass participation in a delusion. TERFs (a left-wing acronym for
“trans-exclusive radical feminist” which Rowling and others have adopted) see
the struggle against transgenderism as akin to the fight for abortion and the
Equal Rights Amendment — that is, it’s one of many societal power structures
that hurt women. But conservatives and TERFs alike want to see women flourish.
For this reason, we have seen the two sides become strange bedfellows in this
arena of the culture war. And for this reason, Rowling should drop her
reservations about working with conservatives toward their shared goal.
Parties can form an alliance of convenience without
sharing all beliefs. Just look at every bipartisan venture in Congress.
Recently, Republicans have successfully allied themselves with moderate
Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema against Build Back Better, a
would-be failure of the Biden administration. In the same way, Rowling would
not need to abandon her feminist ideals or become pro-life to stand with Walsh,
any more than Walsh would need to speak at a Planned Parenthood rally to stand
with her.
TERFs and conservatives can help each other. Even
considering the many enemies Rowling has made on the progressive left, her
presence in the fight can give the arguments more legitimacy among mainstream
Democrats and independents. Embracing an alliance can help the Right, as well
as Rowling. Opposition to men in women’s sports is a position that’s easy for
conservatives to take among their ideological peers; we cannot say the same for
Rowling. Her status as a TERF makes her a pariah among progressives. She has
certainly displayed great fortitude in standing against the pro-transgenderism
of many feminists. No one questions her grit, and her loyalty to her principles
is admirable. But it may all be for naught if she decides to go it alone.
Her rejection of Walsh as an ally (and, by implication,
her rejection of conservatives who share his views) is of a piece with today’s
all-or-nothing approach to politics, in which anyone who does not accept an
ideology wholesale is a heretic. Rowling earned this status for praising
Walsh’s documentary in the first place, with one leftist critic complaining
that “Rowling has finally gone over the edge.” She will not
improve the situation by engaging in the same ideological absolutism as those
who condemn her. Walsh and other conservatives have serious doubts about the
second and third waves of feminism that Rowling supports, something that she
finds troubling. Nonetheless, she should be willing to stomach her disagreement
and join with conservatives who defend women against transgender ideologues who
cause them harm. After that, we can talk about abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment