by G. Murphy Donovan

“It takes a great deal of courage to standup to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”´- Dumbledore

I encountered Joanne Kathleen Rowling, “Jo” to her intimates, on the internet; not through her fiction, but through her writings about cultural politics, passionate defenses of girls and the threats to the rights of women in Scotland, the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth.

I have also read enough about her novels to know that I am not JKR’s target audience. Albeit, to be sure; witches, wizards, and warlocks are sweet meats for romantic tweens and adolescents.

If Rowling has done nothing else for civilization, she has encouraged an otherwise bovine, reclusive, gadget obsessed, generation of potential career onanists to read and explore the limits of imagination. For that alone, Rowling is the literary Boudica of our times. No author since Dickens or Twain has had such an impact on the reading habits of so many young adults.

So much for the good news.

These days, reporting about Rowling as a cultural warrior is almost as voluminous as her Harry Potter fantasies. Indeed, the usual suspects, like BBC, characterize JKR as a fallen angel. The once iconic writer is now slandered as a bigot for her views on, ironically, a genuine pathology and social disease; the viral gender/sex fad now known as “transition.” Habitués are known as “trannies,” a small minority that aspires to gender neutrality (or neutering), sexual agnosticism, or even crypto science that claims that biology is a matter of opinion, desire, fantasy, or choice.

The great irony here is that, Rowling, the mistress of literary fantasy is now the most prominent critic of biological, medical, and scientific fabrications. Put another way, a true artist has taken on a global phenomenon; woke psychobabble, identity politics, and medical quackery. In fact, Rowling raises the very real specter of generational medical, surgical, and psychiatric malpractice.

For most of human and medical history, so-called “trans” claimants were known as transvestites or transsexuals, terms currently out of favor with contemporary thought police. Nevertheless, gender benders are indeed victims to any number of recognized mental afflictions known as paraphilias.

A total of eight Paraphilias are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM V includes “pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, frotteurism, fetishism, and transvestic fetishism.”

Paraphilias include a variety of behaviors such as: partialism; zoophilia; necrophilia; klismaphilia; coprophilia; urophilia; infantilism; telephone scatologia.

Many of JKR’s critics accuse her of anti-gay bias, as if homosexual men or female lesbians were the concern.  Any fair reading of Rowling’s sentiments reveals that her critiques are directed specifically at transvestic fetishes and autogynepilia.  Autogynephilia is defined as “a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.” The key word here is “male,” as the vast majority of transvestites are biological men.

Unfortunately, the lesbian, bi-sexual, and gay communities (LBG) have been hijacked by this fetish activism. Now a “T” for “trans” has been added to create the pernicious LBGT root acronym, a theft which metastasized to become an alphabet soup of fetishes undermining decades of gay progress. The queer community is in danger of being smeared by criminal fetishism.

The most common sex crime today is pedophilia. The most common sex criminal today is a man who identifies as a woman.

JK Rowling’s alarm about the gender bender threat is both courageous and real. The threat should be of concern to women, parents, feminists, child advocates, and civil rights monitors in any country.

Transsexual rancor, hate, and invective was recently on display with BBC’s India Willoughby (nee Jonathan) where he pilloried Rowling for her views on gender bending, the internet meme which attempts to conflate sex with gender. Willoughby was incensed to be called “he” and then characterized Rowling as the “ginger bitch,” ironically certifying JKR as the most courageous redhead in the Commonwealth.

BBC’s India before and after

The stakes for all biological women in this most toxic of culture wars was also captured recently by @CarolineJohnson on X (nee twitter). Johnson asked; “Must I give up my rights to free speech, safe spaces, sports, and identity (as a woman) so that you (dysphoric males) are affirmed (as fake females)?”

Caroline’s lament, like JKR’s angst, hangs over us all, ominously, like a challenge to the binary world, biology, common sense, and the reality of male and female identities everywhere.

It’s not that Jo Rowling needs my support or any man’s wind at her back. But Rowling just reminds me of an American heroine, Josephine March in Little Women, a fictional literary lass out of, and ahead of, her time and place. “Jo” March was Louisa May Alcott’s alter ego, a comely tomboy and outspoken champion of independence, courage, and common sense. Indeed, an iconic role model for young women, then and now.

If Jo Rowling, or Jo March, needed a platform handle today, it might be “All Guts, No Nuts.”


Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of Intelligence and national security.