President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order today only hours after his inauguration, one titled, “DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.” As he pledged during his campaign almost a year ago, Trump delivered on “Day One” a Gender Critical feminist ‘magic wand’ wish list. Read the whole thing at the WhiteHouse.gov link above, but here is a handy summary of “Defending Women:”
Responses from Gender Critical feminists varied in their enthusiasm for this breakthrough Executive Order that sets the cause of Transgender Radical Activists back to zero.
On the one hand, many women lauded Trump for delivering on his pledge to “defend women” and “restore biological truth:”
Other feminists chose to lament that, though Trump’s Executive Order delivered everything that the Gender Critical community could have wanted from an American politician, that this man they despise was the one to do it.
Rowling tweeted about the “Defending Women” Executive Order in response to a Susan Dalgety tweet on the subject.
Dalgety, the editor of The Women Who Wouldn’t Weesht, despises Trump. Her twixter feed during Trump’s inaugural address featured a series of tweets that snarkily dismissed his pledges to pursue American energy independence (“Fuck the planet“), to “bring back law and order to American cities” (“Says the first convicted felon to be POTUS“), and to “extend our territories” even to Mars (“Thank you says Musk“). She even chose to mock Trump’s ‘air kiss’ to his wife with the suggestion that she wore a broad brimmed hat to prevent him from landing lips on her face (“Form meets function” reposted from ‘The Daily Show’). Most revealing, perhaps, of her Trump Derangement Syndrome was her tweeting “Crazy Stuff” as her verdict on his judgement that he was “saved by God to make America great again.”
Dalgerty’s take on the “Defending Women” Executive Order? Predictable — ‘It’s okay, but, y’know, Trump:’
Rowling retweeted this post to her fourteen million followers with her hearty agreement:
The “OP” or “original post” is either Dalgety’s tweet or the Free Press article to which Dalgety linked. The latter is behind a behind a fire-wall I cannot hurdle so we’ll have to take her word for that. Most of those who responded to her, though, did not agree that her first tweet was politically neutral or grateful to Trump for making “moves to quash gender ideology on his first day:”
Rowling, as explored here yesterday, hates President Trump and has expressed her disdain for him since his first term as President. It would be easy and natural, consequently, to dismiss her response to his ‘Day One’ Executive Order that was Christmas in January for all Gender Critical feminists (and orthodox Christians, by the way, small inclusive ‘o’) with an eyeball roll or shoulder shrug. See the tweet above from ‘Budgerigar Bolger’ for the crystallized version of TDS suggested by Rowling’s post.
It pays, however, to read Rowling closely and to remember her audience.
Yes, she has a reflexive distrust, closer to visceral disgust for President Trump, a mental condition often found in those enthralled by Barry Sotero. As a determinedly self-aware woman, she no doubt is aware of that twitch — and that her Twixter following, an audience now largely made up of Cormoran Strike fans and those who agree with her on her “transgender” war positions, probably shares this feeling for the new American President. See the tweets linked to above by her friend Dalgety; Rowling is responding to her and to progressive women of their ilk in her post today.
They don’t want to hear what a victory this is for their side or anything like a Hossanah for Trump. They cannot hear that, frankly, and Rowling, even if she were capable of ‘going there,’ would be wasting her breath if she did.
Instead, she simply notes, as she has done repeatedly before, her great disappointment with the political left and the “calamity” of its “embrace of gender critical ideology.” That is the principal lesson that Rowling wanted to communicate to Dalgety, or, more likely, to amplify with approval to her audience of millions.
What I find disingenuous, even comic, if the “OP” is Dalgety’s rather than the Free Press piece, is Rowling’s risible assertion that her comment and her friend’s are only about the left’s failings with respect to Gender Theory, not about Trump (‘Orange Man Bad!’). Dalgety’s post clearly is disgusted that it was Trump who “confirmed” the “material reality of sex” rather than the good guys, and, as the respondents noted, Rowling’s use of the words “warning” and “capitalize” are anything but politically neutral or objective.
I think it is sad bordering on pathetic that Rowling was unable to write something grateful for Trump’s “Defending Women” executive order today. She did acknowledge the Order, however, and obliquely wish that her people had done it, which is a begrudging, not to say ‘back-handed,’ expression of admiration. Please do read the EO at WhiteHouse.gov; it makes for astonishing reading.
First time reader of your blog, but I don’t get the impression that Rowling is under any obligation to be “politically neutral.” She’s a self-described leftist who is vocally critical of other liberals trampling the concerns of women and girls.
I’d imagine she doesn’t expect Trump to be a steadfast champion of women, given some of his past behavior and impolitic remarks. And, with all due respect, I don’t think anyone needs to be “grateful” to a poltician for being able to announce that sperm-producing humans are, without exception, male.
Welcome to HogwartsProfessor, Typh!
I see the validity of both your points.
I still find it funny that a person who decries the absence of politicians with the courage to state the obvious facts of sex and gender (and act decisively) cannot admire or express gratitude to one who does.
And saying that incapacity is to be excused or overlooked because she is a “self-described leftist.”
But, yes, you’re right on both points, I think, about why Rowling doesn’t do what she might be expected to do or say in the wake of Trump’s EO “Defending Women.”
“…cannot admire or express gratitude…”, “…incapacity [to do the previous]…”, “…why Rowling doesn’t do what she might be expected to do or say [i.e. laude Trump for taking a stand on an issue she’s long been vocal of]…” —ENOUGH!
As a longtime reader of this blog, I find this troubling rhetoric.
It’s quite a leap to think Rowling – who’s spoken about her own experiences with predatory male behavior – would genuflect to a convicted felon and rapist. For Rowling, this issue is the rusty lining upon the great big cloud that is Trumpian leadership. A Saint is not made of a single good deed.
Let’s not forget Rowling’s stance on this issue has to be viewed through a very specific lens: she lives in Edinburgh. The issue of self-ID is more nationally prominent at the legislative level there, whereas here in the US, it’s more a partisan issue. For Trump to make policy that which is ideological chatter on this side of the Atlantic bastardizes Rowling’s legitimate argument that self-ID is a women’s issue and that biological reality should be protected. Trump’s EO is an inflation of a talking point, rather than corrective of a real issue. This is what she means by “capitalizing.”
Troubling also is the current in this post that one might have legitimate grievances with Trump and his approach to governance. Your use of the pejorative ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is reductive: you snuff out the possibility of any meaningful discourse from the side with which you disagree by labeling those who criticize him as incapable of seeing reality – which, as you should know from reading Rowling closely, is subjective.
P.S. – Why should Trump be offered a Hossanah? He is not a messiah. Absurd.
Thank you for the feedback, David!
I made a very simple point, which you either didn’t understand or chose to ignore.
President Trump delivered on his promise to defend women and protect children via an Executive Order on his first day in office. Your assertion that Trump’s EO was an “inflation of a talking point” reflects that you either have not read it or do not understand its breadth.
Rowling has complained bitterly and with cause about politicians not having the courage to acknowledge biological reality and act accordingly, i.e., to defend women’s rights and protect children from Gender Theory ideologues.
She has greeted with silence the news from the US that a politician has acted just as she has insisted one should.
That is either bad manners, mental illness, or a symptom of being prisoner to one’s preconceptions. One does not have to think of Trump as a “saint” or “messiah,” as you imply I do (how long have you been reading posts here?), to think when given what you want and what you have asked for repeatedly, even if the person giving you what you want is someone you do not like, a “thank you” or “good job” is appropriate.
The ideas that Trump is a “convicted felon and rapist,” for example, and that this means that he cannot do the right thing or cannot be acknowledged for doing the right thing, not to mention that Rowling is only concerned with Edinburgh(!), are sophistry parading as insight, especially given the circumstances of his “conviction” in a kangaroo court, which of course was not for “rape.”
So, your CAPSLOCK anger with me is misplaced, even rude. I hope you feel better! I imagine it’s been a tough week.
Thank you again for reading posts here at HogwartsProfessor and for sharing your thoughts.
And I thank you for your reply, too (I’m a fan).
I’d like to correct my point on Trump being a rapist. That was unintentional shorthand for his being found liable for sexual abuse in 2023 when I was writing. It should have read “sexual abuser.” He is a convicted felon, but not convicted as a rapist. My mistake.
I would also like to correct another typo: I meant to say: “…the current in this post that one might *NOT* have legitimate grievances…”
And I agree on your point that a felon can do good. It wasn’t my intention to indicate otherwise.
I do have to take issue with your assertion the process of his conviction was presided over by a “kangaroo court” though—there is, so far, no credible damning evidence the process was encumbered by any wrongdoing, however overshadowed it was by institutional sloth and the election (and I look forward to the investigative reports ordered by various other EOs on this point, and will be happy to reevaluate with the presence of compelling evidence).
My own simple point, which was in response to yours: I argue Rowling’s citizenship is the context from which she chose to reveal herself. The politicians to which she has referred were her own, not ours, as her criticisms (to my knowledge) have remained largely within the scope of the legal and political landscape of the UK, as well as the larger spectrums of the left and right. Since, until very recently, she had not waded into American politics after 2020 or so, I found the point of expecting her to congratulate Trump on a move she might, on paper, agree with, aberrant because the issue shifts with context: the US’s cultural war imbroglio (hence my reference to: ideology) versus Scotland’s rights-based, policy-driven debates (the pragmatic approach to implementation). Rowling’s argument has always sat at the intersection of gender reform and women’s rights. It’s always been nuanced there, while here, the issue is mostly partisan. So, I take her relative silence (because she did comment, however unsatisfactory to whichever criteria) acknowledgment of this. Plus, her perspective on our political scene will be inherently different because she’s European. Maybe she doesn’t wholly agree with the EO. I certainly don’t. Or she feels it doesn’t apply to her argument. Or maybe she feels it’s not her place as a European to comment substantively.
If you want to champion discourse, among those who disagree with Trump, to recognize the good he does on balance with criticism and fight knee-jerk left-wing reaction, fine, I’m interested in that conversation (I’m also interested in the same for the right-wing)—but to theorize mental illness and derangement because one may not see the good another does, in exactly the way another may, is a step too far in my book: I make it a point never to insult a person’s well-being or intelligence before having met them.
And I feel perfectly fine, thanks; energized this week – happy even – especially since I learned a long time ago to stop thinking myself into other people’s brains.
For the record: I have nothing but respect for your contribution to Harry Potter and look forward always to reading more of your literary analyses, which I await with bated breath.
PS – my caps lock was a manifestation of my reaction to the mental chatter and debate I experienced within myself after reading your post. It was a point of style. I regret that you found it offensive.
Thank you, David, for this sober and generous exlanation of your points.
All apologies accepted; please accept mine for my part in our several instances of talking past each other.
For the record, I do not think Rowling is “mentally ill” beyond what she has publicly discussed about being OCD and suffering from PTSD. If she suffers from TDS as I suspect, an ailment not in any diagnostic manual that I know of, it is obviously a relatively mild and benign case.
I find your argument about Rowling’s opting out of American politics post 2020 interesting but not convincing (yet!). What do you think shifted in 2020?
Might her experience in that year have made her less apt to belittle publicly people she has never met?
Thank you again for your kind response to my note — and for your reading HogwartsProfessor!
Rowling re-posted without comment a Susan Dalgerty tweet on 25 January that linked to her editorial in The Scotsman, ‘ The Left Must Realise that Donald Trump’s Gender Views Strike a Chord with Voters.’ The editorial, after the necessary progressive bona fides throat clearing denouncing Trump for faults real and imagined, said what Rowling has been unequal to saying herself, namely:
I’m taking Rowling’s retweet of Dalgerty’s editorial as her endorsement of its core message, one to be found in that last sentence. It’s not a “Huzzah!” or “Three Cheers!” but for a feminist ideologue it will have to do.
And there’s more! Rowling posted that she was in agreement with Carole Hooven’s Twixter thread about how a reporter for The Guardian ignored her responses to write a hit-piece about Trump’s EO ‘Defending Women.’ [See, too, Hooven’s essay, ‘Why I Left Harvard,’ the University where she taught for twenty years, due to its restrictions on her free speech there.]
Rowling has been a dedicated Guardian reader, the establishment Left paper in the UK something like the Washington Post is in the US, and this must have been as difficult for her to write as her sideways recognition of the value of Trump’s EO.