Is J.K. Rowling a misogynist?

Already I can hear the outraged replies to the title of this essay. How can Ms. Rowling be a misogynist? She's a feminist! How can she be a misogynist? She's a woman, for God's sake!

Allow me to clarify for the incredulous reader that I am speaking of misogyny not as a personal, tangible hatred of women, but rather, as any participation in or endorsement of systems that do real harm to women. This sort of definition may be unfamiliar to some, but it will be perfectly recognizable to any who have engaged in the academic study of racism, sexism, or other systems of oppression. Given that neither you nor I have direct access to Ms. Rowling's mind, neither of us can hope to form a conclusion on her actual feelings towards women. What we can, however, reasonably determine is whether or not her actions perpetuate good or harm towards women. Okay? Okay.

For the last half decade or so, it has been a pet project of Ms. Rowling's to protect women against the so-called threat of the transsexual. She and her political allies assert that one of the most pressing problems facing women in today's world is men who dress up as women in order to gain access to women's bathrooms and sexually assault women. Now, the claim might sound a bit dubious when you put it like that, but let us, for the sake of this essay, seriously engage Ms. Rowling's concerns, and concoct a plan to protect women against this supposed threat.

For the uninitiated, the solution may seem simple. How do you tell apart a transsexual from a biological woman? Well, by looking at them, of course.

Things are not so simple, however, for transsexuals are a crafty bunch. Those who have received years of estrogen therapy, surgeries, and other cosmetic procedures, are often nigh-indistinguishable from the women-born-women. What then, must be our approach?

While policing our bathrooms against this threat, we must be vigilant for the small signs that may indicate transsexuality: a deep voice, the slight stubble of a beard, a flat chest, unusual height, or a particularly sharp jawline. Now, this may come as a surprise to some of you, but none of those traits are unique to transsexual women. Many biological women have some, or even multiple, of those traits. How then, can a woman-born-woman ensure that she is not harassed or kicked out of a women's restroom?

Well, the first step is to be aware of one's own masculine traits. Each woman must take a good honest look at herself, and ask, do I look like a man? If the answer is yes, or even maybe, it is best to take some steps to remedy that. This may not be ideal, but remember, it's for the greater good.

What steps? Well, women with strong jaw lines or prominent noses should probably wear feminizing makeup. Some blush or eyeshadow will do the trick. Women who naturally grow facial hair should shave diligently, in order that their slight stubble not give them the appearance of a man. Women with small breasts should be sure to wear bras, in order that they may not be mistaken to have flat chests. Similarly, women with curves should wear clothing that accentuates them. This is all in our self-interest, of course.

What else? Well, women with deep voices should do their best to affect a higher feminine register. If this proves impossible, they should refrain from speaking at all. Women with long hair should keep it that way, for a short or masculine haircut might suggest something untoward. Women who do already have short hair should perhaps consider wearing a hat, in order to avoid causing any fellow women discomfort.

Okay, with the strict but necessary measures in place, have we eliminated all transsexuals from the sacred and holy space of the women's toilet? No, but we are getting there. Allow us to take some further precautions.

One reliable method could be to check ID cards, in order to guarantee that the women in this restroom are legally so. This may not work in Ms. Rowling's own Great Britain, where personal ID cards are neither mandated nor standard. But perhaps it will be in the best interest of women everywhere to change this: after all, we are only trying to protect society's most vulnerable.

It would be impossible to check the ID of every woman who wishes to use a washroom, on account of the massive expense this will incur, but perhaps we can check the ID cards of those women already under suspicion. If someone is accused of being a man, a simple check of their identification should resolve the issue.

Will this be foolproof? Unfortunately not. As anyone who was once a teenager knows, a fake ID is more than possible to obtain. Furthermore, many countries allow sex to be changed on official identification papers, thus allowing many transsexual women to be legally recognized as women.

There is, then, one final step that can be implemented to properly identify someone as man or woman: the patdown. In extreme cases of doubt, authorized police officials may physically investigate a woman in order to determine the state of her genitals. Although the exact contours of a vulva probably cannot be determined through layers of clothing, the presence or absence of a penis is easily ascertained.

Even this, however, is imperfect, for we all know that those transsexuals who have undergone surgical procedures may themselves sport vulvas.

Have we managed, then, to filter out all transsexuals? No, although we have managed to exclude most. Along the way, we may have subjected some biological women to some uncomfortable questions or procedures, but it is for their own good. After all, we are protecting them from the rapists who call themselves women.

Let us, then, review the system we have created. In order to protect women from this threat, we ask only a few simple things: that women present themselves in a properly feminine manner, with appropriate styles of dress, hair, and makeup; that women carry an official form government ID that they are willing to show at any time when questioned; and that women be willing to subject themselves to physical investigation by government officials.

Wait a minute: in attempting to liberate women, have we really done so? In attempting to protect women, what have we done but re-create the patriarchal structures of power that the feminist movement has spent decades trying to get away from? We have completely flattened all female gender nonconformity, and subjected women to humiliating questions, probing, and groping. Was it worth it?

Ms. Rowling's crusade does benefit women: women who are white, rich, traditionally feminine, young, and yes, cisgender. It does real tangible harm to all other women: Black women, masculine women, butch lesbians, elderly women, women who have received mastectomies, women who grow facial hair, and yes, transsexual women. Should we be willing to sacrifice all these women at the altar of a made-up crime? (I will inform the reader that there is no reliable evidence that transsexual women perpetrate sex crimes in substantial numbers, while there is an abundance of evidence indicating that transsexual women are likely to be victims of sex crimes.) Of course not!

Why then, do we afford Ms. Rowling that esteemed title of feminist? Her detractors and friends alike call her a TERF: a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Trans-exclusionary and radical, she most certainly is, but a feminist? How can she be a feminist when she uses her immense wealth to create systems of power that harm so many women? How can she be a feminist when she reduces women to their biological reproductive equipment, rather than their full experience of personhood? How can she be a feminist when she ignores decades of hard work, research and theory by feminists who have worked to understand womanhood as not merely biological, but a socially constructed class?

No, Ms. Rowling does not deserve the title of feminist, for her actions, rhetoric, and platform are all clearly indicative of an intense and pervasive misogyny.

– Sara Moiseff, August 2025