Agree that this conversation deserves more nuance and ignoring the good she has done, or putting her against people like Weinstein worsens the quality of the discussion.
The objection isn't that she defends women. It's that she draws the boundary in a way where the costs fall on a much smaller and more vulnerable group. You can think that tradeoff is right, and many do. But that's the tradeoff her critics who are "canceling" her are critiquing her for.
You write that being famous doesn't make an opinion correct, but neither does being popular. This is a liberal ideal and why tyranny of the majority is one of its founding concerns. Mill's whole argument in On Liberty is that the danger isn't only the state; it's social pressure, the mob, prevailing opinion enforcing itself.
That's the principle you're using to protect Rowling from a pile-on, but it's also the same principle that says a poll doesn't settle what a minority is owed. Support for gay marriage as well as interracial marriage were once fringe opinions. The people who defended those rights did so on the appeal to liberal principles. And it's really the point - these protections matter the most exactly when they are counter to "popular opinion"
And to circle back to the nuance - the fact that she is someone who really cares about women shows that good people can inadvertently create a lot of harm, even when they think they are defending rights. Trade-offs are unavoidable, so it is worth thinking about who bears the costs, so we can be careful about how to minimize overall harm, and not just sacrifice one group's rights to defend another's. The liberal answer is to consider context and carefully weigh the harms on the smaller and more vulnerable group.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment Larissa, some quick thoughts on your points...
Am not sure comp to interracial/same-sex marriage work for me. Those were Qs where moral principle of equal treatment under law was really clear, whereas Rowling talks about competing rights + recent policy Qs where evidence, particularly re: medical treatment of minors and female-only spaces is not settled (there have been documented sexual assaults in prisons, for ex).
And I also agree w/your point that popularity doesn't establish truth, but I was talking about cancel culture here, and if 2/3 of Americans hold a position, it isn’t cancel-worthy. Popularity doesn't settle any Q by itself, but is relevant to whether a position is within bounds of normal democratic disagreement.
Your final point actually reinforces what I'm saying and I agree with it: if good-faith people can disagree re: how to weigh competing harms, that’s for sure an argument for more discussion/intellectual humility, vs treating someone as a moral pariah for taking the “wrong side” of a debate. If everyone did that we'd be in a better place.
It's true that prisons puts that competition between rights very starkly. I would note that putting trans women in men's prisons also puts them at incredible risk. I would support minimizing the harms n both those cases. But presenting the policy choices as strictly binary makes it so that we've decided in advance not to spend anything. This is truly a very small group of people. Separate units are a miniscule budget line in the grand scheme of things, and I hate to see it as the subject of a moral impasse.
When a problem gets framed as an unavoidable clash of rights, it's worth asking if the negotiating space has been artificially narrowed. I'd rather ask what it would cost to protect both groups - which could potentially open a much bigger discussion on spending where people may find areas for agreement. A more classic tactic in good-faith negotiation is to expand the pie and what's open for trade-offs.
I think there was also more framing around competing rights in the interracial or same-sex marriage discussion than you may be giving credit for, and some of that was specifically around bodily harm. The safety of women was close to the foundation of the case against interracial marriage, and public approval of it didn't reach half the US until the 90s (!!) Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings were substantially about showers and barracks. Additionally, much of the case against LGBT rights are often framed as a clash with religious rights.
I would be curious to hear more about what you're looking at when you say "the moral principle of equal treatment under the law was increasingly clear" for those cases. It seems like the moral principle had to be argued for, and argued for against a framing that positioned rights as clashing, and evoked the threat against the majority group. I think this is very much aligned to your point about the importance of good-faith arguments - as that's how the moral line evolves.
Yeah sure, so I think it's clear those things were aligned with the core Western notions of freedom, and the claims of harm at the time weren't really scientific or would hold up, just rooted in entrenched/religious beliefs (so they lost) But modern society is clearly far more scientific and data-driven, so when there is a clash of ideas particularly amongst smart people there is likely real weight to both sides. Even shorter: those prior debates didn't have real, defensible research tied to them. I am an optimist and think on a long enough timeline, truth wins out over dogma, unless sufficiently suppressed
Sir - if 59% of all white people agreed with some judge that black people were 2nd-class citizens, would that make it true? How about if 97% of whites said that black people were inferior humans, would they be even MORE correct? Ignorance about the great diversity of the human being - and the inherent worth of all of us in our several types - cannot be surveyed, voted, or ruled into existence. It's still just ignorance and needs to be fought against. YES, we can concretely, narrowly ensure that girls/women's sports and women's prisons are administered in fairness and safety - that does not mean, blanket assumption-wise, that ergo trans is evil or not a thing. What trans folks and their families do with their own bodies is actually nobody else's business and Rowling wants to make it her business.
We're talking here about not being able to see a consolidated anti-trans movement - the movement is all over social media, including intelligent, worthy Substacks like this one that have so many other important things to say about the world but periodically have to chime in with "oh, yeah, and I hate trans." That is the movement - it's called Trans Derangement Syndrome, and it usually comes out of the clear blue to ruin an otherwise excellent discussion. Thank you for listening - I'm almost always a huge fan of your work.
As I was saying similarly to another commenter, the comparison to something like slavery or 2nd class citizenship doesn't work for me. Those were questions where moral principle of equal treatment under law was really clear, whereas Rowling talks about competing rights + recent policy Qs where evidence, particularly re: medical treatment of minors and female-only spaces is not settled (there have been documented sexual assaults in prisons, for ex). It does sound like you also care about ensuring safety here.
And no one I've seen, not even Rowling is saying trans people are worth less or don't deserve rights or are evil. I read her statements in full on these issues and they didn't sound hateful at all, they were often very supportive of trans people which I found in stark contrast to what was being said about her.
I also think this conversation shouldn't be "off limits" -- that feels really dogmatic and illiberal to me. People can disagree about the appropriate boundaries while not being insulting or demeaning. If society is going to make policy that affects everyone I think we have an obligation to discuss tradeoffs instead of preventing they don't exist.
Thx for sharing your thinking on this topic btw - it is interesting to see people's point of view
Agree that this conversation deserves more nuance and ignoring the good she has done, or putting her against people like Weinstein worsens the quality of the discussion.
The objection isn't that she defends women. It's that she draws the boundary in a way where the costs fall on a much smaller and more vulnerable group. You can think that tradeoff is right, and many do. But that's the tradeoff her critics who are "canceling" her are critiquing her for.
You write that being famous doesn't make an opinion correct, but neither does being popular. This is a liberal ideal and why tyranny of the majority is one of its founding concerns. Mill's whole argument in On Liberty is that the danger isn't only the state; it's social pressure, the mob, prevailing opinion enforcing itself.
That's the principle you're using to protect Rowling from a pile-on, but it's also the same principle that says a poll doesn't settle what a minority is owed. Support for gay marriage as well as interracial marriage were once fringe opinions. The people who defended those rights did so on the appeal to liberal principles. And it's really the point - these protections matter the most exactly when they are counter to "popular opinion"
And to circle back to the nuance - the fact that she is someone who really cares about women shows that good people can inadvertently create a lot of harm, even when they think they are defending rights. Trade-offs are unavoidable, so it is worth thinking about who bears the costs, so we can be careful about how to minimize overall harm, and not just sacrifice one group's rights to defend another's. The liberal answer is to consider context and carefully weigh the harms on the smaller and more vulnerable group.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment Larissa, some quick thoughts on your points...
Am not sure comp to interracial/same-sex marriage work for me. Those were Qs where moral principle of equal treatment under law was really clear, whereas Rowling talks about competing rights + recent policy Qs where evidence, particularly re: medical treatment of minors and female-only spaces is not settled (there have been documented sexual assaults in prisons, for ex).
And I also agree w/your point that popularity doesn't establish truth, but I was talking about cancel culture here, and if 2/3 of Americans hold a position, it isn’t cancel-worthy. Popularity doesn't settle any Q by itself, but is relevant to whether a position is within bounds of normal democratic disagreement.
Your final point actually reinforces what I'm saying and I agree with it: if good-faith people can disagree re: how to weigh competing harms, that’s for sure an argument for more discussion/intellectual humility, vs treating someone as a moral pariah for taking the “wrong side” of a debate. If everyone did that we'd be in a better place.
Thank you for inviting the discussion!
It's true that prisons puts that competition between rights very starkly. I would note that putting trans women in men's prisons also puts them at incredible risk. I would support minimizing the harms n both those cases. But presenting the policy choices as strictly binary makes it so that we've decided in advance not to spend anything. This is truly a very small group of people. Separate units are a miniscule budget line in the grand scheme of things, and I hate to see it as the subject of a moral impasse.
When a problem gets framed as an unavoidable clash of rights, it's worth asking if the negotiating space has been artificially narrowed. I'd rather ask what it would cost to protect both groups - which could potentially open a much bigger discussion on spending where people may find areas for agreement. A more classic tactic in good-faith negotiation is to expand the pie and what's open for trade-offs.
I think there was also more framing around competing rights in the interracial or same-sex marriage discussion than you may be giving credit for, and some of that was specifically around bodily harm. The safety of women was close to the foundation of the case against interracial marriage, and public approval of it didn't reach half the US until the 90s (!!) Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings were substantially about showers and barracks. Additionally, much of the case against LGBT rights are often framed as a clash with religious rights.
I would be curious to hear more about what you're looking at when you say "the moral principle of equal treatment under the law was increasingly clear" for those cases. It seems like the moral principle had to be argued for, and argued for against a framing that positioned rights as clashing, and evoked the threat against the majority group. I think this is very much aligned to your point about the importance of good-faith arguments - as that's how the moral line evolves.
Yeah sure, so I think it's clear those things were aligned with the core Western notions of freedom, and the claims of harm at the time weren't really scientific or would hold up, just rooted in entrenched/religious beliefs (so they lost) But modern society is clearly far more scientific and data-driven, so when there is a clash of ideas particularly amongst smart people there is likely real weight to both sides. Even shorter: those prior debates didn't have real, defensible research tied to them. I am an optimist and think on a long enough timeline, truth wins out over dogma, unless sufficiently suppressed
Thank you so much for this eloquent and reasoned comment.
Sir - if 59% of all white people agreed with some judge that black people were 2nd-class citizens, would that make it true? How about if 97% of whites said that black people were inferior humans, would they be even MORE correct? Ignorance about the great diversity of the human being - and the inherent worth of all of us in our several types - cannot be surveyed, voted, or ruled into existence. It's still just ignorance and needs to be fought against. YES, we can concretely, narrowly ensure that girls/women's sports and women's prisons are administered in fairness and safety - that does not mean, blanket assumption-wise, that ergo trans is evil or not a thing. What trans folks and their families do with their own bodies is actually nobody else's business and Rowling wants to make it her business.
We're talking here about not being able to see a consolidated anti-trans movement - the movement is all over social media, including intelligent, worthy Substacks like this one that have so many other important things to say about the world but periodically have to chime in with "oh, yeah, and I hate trans." That is the movement - it's called Trans Derangement Syndrome, and it usually comes out of the clear blue to ruin an otherwise excellent discussion. Thank you for listening - I'm almost always a huge fan of your work.
As I was saying similarly to another commenter, the comparison to something like slavery or 2nd class citizenship doesn't work for me. Those were questions where moral principle of equal treatment under law was really clear, whereas Rowling talks about competing rights + recent policy Qs where evidence, particularly re: medical treatment of minors and female-only spaces is not settled (there have been documented sexual assaults in prisons, for ex). It does sound like you also care about ensuring safety here.
And no one I've seen, not even Rowling is saying trans people are worth less or don't deserve rights or are evil. I read her statements in full on these issues and they didn't sound hateful at all, they were often very supportive of trans people which I found in stark contrast to what was being said about her.
I also think this conversation shouldn't be "off limits" -- that feels really dogmatic and illiberal to me. People can disagree about the appropriate boundaries while not being insulting or demeaning. If society is going to make policy that affects everyone I think we have an obligation to discuss tradeoffs instead of preventing they don't exist.
Thx for sharing your thinking on this topic btw - it is interesting to see people's point of view