Counter-Currents
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of the Trans Phenomenon
Morris van de Camp
1,620 words
J. K. Rowling, the beloved author of the Harry Potter series of young adult novels, has come under considerable social scorn for her anti-trans stance. She’s had to return awards, has caused firestorms on Twitter, has been threatened by trans women, and has even been cancelled by the Harry Potter franchise that she created.
She was recently on a podcast to explain her views. She compared her pro-trans opponents to Death Eaters — the fictional paramilitary, magical bad guys in her books who live in secret until they come out in force when their side starts to gain power. In response, a Rowling critic, Sarah Barrett, wrote,
I have no interest in ever revisiting the Harry Potter books, but I’m pretty sure I remember why the Death Eaters were living in secret. It wasn’t because they were part of an oppressed group. It was because they chose to hate and hurt people who they saw as “lesser” and were rightfully punished for it. I definitely remember the Death Eaters’ philosophy wasn’t “you disagree with us, you must die.” It was more along the lines of, “You were born a certain way and because of that we want to terrorize you, cast you out of society and ultimately kill you.”
That sounds a lot more like one side of this “debate” than the other.
Barrett is, in fact, correctly reading the Harry Potter series’ message. Rowling poorly thought through the conflict at the center of her story — and since many younger people today learned their ideas about right and wrong from Harry Potter, this is a problem. First, there are the bad guys: Voldemort, the Death Eaters, and the Pure Blood snobs like Malfoy. Then there are the good guys like Professor Dumbledore and Harry Potter’s political faction in the Magical Community, who support a policy of integrating magic-capable individuals born of magically-challenged people into their world.
In other words, “discrimination” is bad and “tolerance” is good. Unfortunately, this idea is a narrow one upon which to base a vast — albeit fictional — conflict that has influenced so many in the real world. An entire generation has grown up reading Harry Potter, and as a result, they’ve become unable to recognize any evil other than “discrimination.”
Another fictional universe where we see a vast conflict in which the good and evil sides are made extremely explicit is Star Wars. Whereas the Rebel Alliance seems as pure as driven snow in the first film of the series, by the second, The Empire Strikes Back, the viewer begins to detect some of the Rebels’ moral flaws. Yoda, for example, tells Luke that he must “unlearn what he has learned.” Is that really good advice? Then, we discover that Obi-Wan lied about the fate of Luke’s father. And when it comes to the other side, Darth Vader’s motivations don’t seem so evil when he explains them himself: bringing peace and order to the galaxy.
We learn more in the prequel films — enough to introduce more ambiguity into which side is good and which is evil. The Jedi, despite professing to be apolitical, are interfering in government, and the Galactic Republic cannot protect its member planets from rogue operators such as the Trade Federation. Thus, there is no order in the galaxy under the Old Republic and the Jedi Order. When Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) buys the young Anakin Skywalker as a slave, he doesn’t bother to buy his mother as well, and she is eventually captured and killed by the Sand People. The Jedi are indeed selfish, it seems, and their narrow interpretation of the religion surrounding the Force evinces moral blind spots.
The Harry Potter universe likewise offers greater insights in its prequels, but the revelations are not as insightful as those in Star Wars. We get only a glimpse of Voldemort’s ideology in the prequels, and it takes a great deal of thinking to realize it. In Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, we discover a major plot hole: Should a magical person find himself in a non-magical environment and have his magical powers suppressed, he becomes an obscural whose magical powers manifest in destructive ways. This problem must be dealt with by the magical authorities in all circumstances.
One can presume that Voldemort knows this. It is therefore highly illogical for him not to accept allowing Mudbloods such as Hermione Granger to be integrated into the Magical Community, since suppressed magic-capable Mudbloods will end up using magic in a harmful way, regardless. This is a major flaw in the rules of the Harry Potter universe.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s In Defense of Prejudice here
In Fantastic Beasts, a bit more is revealed about the Voldemort faction’s ideology. The Magical Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol) has bewitched the American Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and caused him to love her. On the surface, this seems like a harmless interaction between the magical and non-magical worlds; after all, Queenie is an attractive woman and Kowalski is prime husband material, but there are considerable problems with this.
We can see that given these powers, a magical person can bewitch any Muggle for any reason. A scheming wizard could bewitch attractive Muggle maidens, turn heterosexuals into homosexual sex slaves, or create an enchanted army of Muggles to use as cannon fodder against another witch or wizard. The entire situation is fraught with the potential for exploitation, and is a great danger to both the Magical and non-Magical societies. Voldemort is therefore right to keep the Magical World away from the non-Magical one. Discrimination is often necessary. Grindelwald, the philosophical precursor to the Voldemort faction, likewise warns the magical ones against getting involved in Muggle conflicts, such as the pending Second World War.
The Harry Potter series is as much in the shadow of the Second World War as the rest of the English-speaking world, and this is another problem. The main part of the series has a narrative feel like that of Britain during the period between the two world wars. The Magical establishment fails to see the danger of Voldemort’s second coming in the same way that the British establishment, led by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, failed to see the danger of a resurgent Germany until it was too late.
But this narrative is wrong, of course: the Second World War happened because the British made a guarantee to Poland for its security which they could not back up. This caused the Poles to refuse to compromise when they could have, and 60 million people ended up dying, most of Europe’s cities were destroyed, and the British lost their empire. Britain’s guarantee to Poland was thus a diplomatic disaster.
J. K. Rowling’s angry pro-trans fanbase is itself the product of Rowling’s own simplistic portrayal of Harry Potter’s enemies as cartoon Nazis. The trans movement does not consist of “lesser” people who are hurt by hateful people like Rowling and her fictional Death Eaters. In fact, the trans movement is an evil ideology that is advancing under the umbrella of compassion and non-discrimination. Harry Potter’s Dumbledore/Potter faction would in fact likely endorse it if they were real people in the present day. Thus, the highly popularHarry Potterseries’ moral simplicity is a large part of why the trans contagion cannot be easily stopped.
The trans movement is a product of three interrelated phenomena: the sexual revolution, the spread of pornography, and social media. The sexual revolution and porn causes some men to want to become women. Some highly-competitive straight white men have become psychologically warped by girl-on-girl pornography to the degree that they become sexually aroused by imagining themselves as women. This condition is called autogynephilia. If this were recognized for being what it actually is — a fetish — it could be dealt with accordingly. But since this fetish is prevalent among highly-competitive and often wealthy straight white men, they have sought to make it socially acceptable. In this they are being aided by ethnonationalist Jews — who are often fetishists themselves.
Then, there is transsexualism among girls and young women. Many girls feel awkward in their bodies; this is a natural thing that has probably been the case since time immemorial. With the onrush of social media, however, girls have fallen for bad advice from those who want to promote transsexuality. Girls also have a propensity to discuss their problems with their friends: This is called co-rumination. In many cases these interactions are normal and healthy, but should those involved hit upon a bad idea, it tends to spread. The ancient Greeks called this hysteria. A better term for this is social contagion. Young women are “possessed by demons,” get the shakes, see witches, and become anorexic under the influence of friend groups. Female-to-male transsexualism is a variation of that. Young women are permanently damaging their bodies, and society is nearly helpless in stopping them.
The feeling of angst that causes young women to transition is real, but the solution to their angst is not to turn into the opposite sex. They rather need to be coached through adolescence to accept what they are.
When the Harry Potter series was new in the early 2000s, many expressed concern that the American Religious Right would clamp down on the books due to their occult themes. This didn’t happen, however, probably because the Religious Right was then in the process of being discredited due to its close association with the George W. Bush administration. But the books’ fictional use of the occult wasn’t the real problem, anyway. It was rather the books’ morally simplistic framing of its fictional conflict in terms of “progressives” who are at war with those who “discriminate.” Had Voldemort’s ideology been given more nuance, it is possible that J. K. Rowling would have no men pretending to be women threatening her today.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
18 comments
OK, so you’re pushing the lie that all trannies are motivated by AGP. Even if true, it’s impossible to prove, and even if you manage to prove it to the world’s satisfaction, what’s the point? What’s your end goal here? To ban porn or trans medication (impossible)? To keep trannies out of women’s bathrooms or “women’s sports?” This is at least the 3rd article you’ve written on this topic and still there’s no specifics. Do you have even have any?
“To ban porn or trans medication (impossible)?”
Of course it’s not impossible! What a presentist point of view! That which was possible from the end of the last Ice Age until 1972 is now “impossible”?
There are several problems with this ideology. For one thing, there’s a lot of pressure on vulnerable young people to make permanent changes to their bodies before they’re mature enough to do things like sign a binding contract. An increasing number are growing up and regretting it, and this is going to become the mother of all lawsuit bonanzas. Another major problem is that this ideology demands that the rest of society conform to their self-image. If I said the right magic words, I could use the women’s locker room at my gym, despite anyone else’s discomfort or considerations of safety. I could enter a women’s powerlifting event and use my natural advantage to take an award away from a woman who worked harder. Moreover, the totalitarian nature of this ideology is contrary to everyone else’s personal liberty. Those who dissent, and say a man in a dress isn’t really a woman, can get cancelled like J. K. Rowling here. They’re not supposed to have their own opinions. All this is just for starters.
If I said the right magic words, I could use the women’s locker room at my gym, despite anyone else’s discomfort or considerations of safety.
It’s dishonorable for men to insult and slander each other anonymously, because they wouldn’t be so bold in person. This is why men will often say “You wouldn’t say that to my face” to men who insult them online. Women have no reservations about slandering and humiliating men to their faces because they don’t have to worry about getting their lights punched out.
Women have invaded male spaces (the workplace was a male space until the 1970s) under a totally different code of conduct that allows them to make false accusations against men, forcing companies to waste billions on sex harassment suits and ruining the lives of thousands of men to the point of suicide…and we’re supposed to care if women don’t feel comfortable in locker rooms? That’s not getting your priorities mixed up, it’s downright simping.
I could enter a women’s powerlifting event and use my natural advantage to take an award away from a woman who worked harder.
Why would a white nationalist care if women work hard at becoming weightlifters? How does lifting a heavy barbell help a woman become a mother? The sport is an abomination to womanhood.
Much of what you say is correct. Still, that doesn’t mean it’s legitimate to intrude on very private spaces such as a locker room.
Also, physical fitness is good for everyone. I didn’t realize how much so until I started lifting. Without that, I might well have gotten a case of type 2 diabetes by now.
Finally, all this is pretty much beside the point.
Also, physical fitness is good for everyone.
If the purpose of playing sports is to get fit, why does it matter if trannies win all of the medals? It’s not necessary to play sports to get fit. Many people who play sports are obese. Look at the NFL. Heck, look at Olympic weightlifting. There was an Olympic weightlifter from Iran a few years back who won a medal despite being morbidly obese.
Sports is about competition, and team sports simulates warfare. Girls play sports to prepare them for the workforce. If you think girls are pressing barbells over their heads to get fit I don’t know what to tell you. They are obviously trying to accomplish a feat of strength and enjoy the prestige of victory like a man. If you think it’s okay for women to do that, then you have no business criticizing men for impersonating women.
I still haven’t heard a convincing explanation for why ethno nationalists are supposed to care about trannies. Trannies aren’t going up to kids in the street and telling them to cut their dicks off. It’s their parents who drag them to “drag queen story time” and indoctrinate them. The blame for transitioning children lies with leftist parents and single mothers. TERFs complaining about feeling unsafe in dressing rooms is total hypocrisy. When they’re ready to repeal Affirmative Action and sexual harassment laws, I might care about their safety (though I know it’s not really about their safety but about men claiming their privileges by identifying as women).
Reply to your second comment:
Ethnonationalists shouldn’t care about trannies, but we should certainly care about women.
The last thing we should do is laugh at them when men enter women’s sports, bathrooms, or any other sex-segregated space. The differences between men and women are obvious, which makes the gender issue a gateway drug of sorts. If they can see through the nonsense of dudes with Adam’s apples declaring themselves women, the rest is easy.
Additionally, women often lend a sympathetic ear to right-wing ideas once they experience the consequences of intersectionality, whether it be outrage from black people for questioning any part of their “lived experience” or disrespect from trannies who want to go to the same bathrooms.
When straight white women realize they are low on the victimhood totem pole, they are more likely to avoid siding with the oppressed. Sure, there will be the occasional masochistic ‘ally’ that stays loyal to minorities, but many become disillusioned with their leftist worldview. We need to be open to such women. I changed my wife’s views on the tranny issue. Since then, she has opened up to my views on race. Same goes for her sister.
I can’t say I’d be nearly as persuasive if I just dismissed their concerns and laughed at their plight.
Women doing powerlifting seems pretty contrary to gender norms, so it’s a bad argument to use against people who have no desire to follow gender norms.
The totalitarians are the ones who want to prevent people using their natural liberties to be trannies, as this requires the state control of internet access, medications and deprivation of bodily autonomy.
Saying a tranny is a “man in a dress” is like saying that a whale is a “land mammal that swims.”
It’s like this. Personal idiosyncrasies are one matter, not such a big deal. However, surgical mutilation is a worse category, and at the least should not be evangelized the way it is presently. Since I’m a Fascist, I don’t hesitate to be paternalistic about it.
About the whale analogy, that’s actually the problem. Men can declare they’re women (or vice versa) simply by saying they feel like it or identify that way. Although you set the bar higher, that won’t matter to them. They don’t even need dresses, or any other objective standards. I’ll grant that they feel a certain way, but reality doesn’t rearrange itself according to their feelings or wishes.
So they have their special definitions. Well, the problem with this is because they want to compel everyone else to use their special definitions rather than the normal agreed-upon definitions. They try to punish people who disagree with them. (Again, this includes J. K. Rowling here, who has received death threats, and also has been denounced by some ungrateful little shits who became movie stars because of her.) They increasingly are enlisting the law to compel everyone else to agree with them. This goes beyond “doing your own thing” and instead is an instance of illegitimate use of force. It’s the typical leftist “your rights end where my feelings begin” shtick.
“Your rights end where my feelings begin” is the sine qua non of fascism.
“OK, so you’re pushing the lie that all trannies are motivated by AGP.”
Did you read this part?
“Then, there is transsexualism among girls and young women. Many girls feel awkward in their bodies; this is a natural thing that has probably been the case since time immemorial. With the onrush of social media, however, girls have fallen for bad advice from those who want to promote transsexuality.”
I skimmed this article because I have never read Harry Potter, nor will I (do adults willing do this? conservatives? or was it to oversee possible children’s reading?), and I only partially saw one Potter film; hated it; and walked out midway (and this was only because, to be honest, I’d seen one film that day, and had some time to kill before my other one started). Rowling is neither prowhite, nor conservative (to my knowledge). She is more like a TERF, or maybe just a “TEF”. She recognizes biological fact (that male and female are different), and correctly worries about the tranny phenomenon setting back feminist gains.
We can ally with persons like Rowling, but we shouldn’t budge on anti-feminism (let alone race realism and ethnonationalism) if doing so. The pro-white preservationist vision is far more closely aligned with “Old School” Christianity than with any aspect of Sexual Revolutionism.
Second World War happened because the British made a guarantee to Poland for its security which they could not back up.
No, it happened because powerful intersecting interests, in Britain, France the USA and the USSR wanted it to happen. Poland was just the patsy, goading Germany into reclaiming her former territory and giving the Western powers the required pretext for their planned destruction of Germany. The British people didn’t want war so they had to be bombed, sometimes by their own forces, to drum up support.
Exactly.
The tragedy was that Herbert Hoover the philanttopist sent food to save Lenin and the Red Army, while later, as an US president, left countless Americans to starve.
The tragedy was that FDR sent so much war technology in order to arm the USSR. So much technology that at the beginning of the WW2 USSR had the greatest number of tanks and planes in the world. Everything done with American engineers and machinery.
The tragedy was the high treason of the European and American intellectuals that favored USSR and covered the genocide instrumented by the communists.
Poland and Germany were played against each other. Without the help from some friends Poland would have allied with Germany, the most logical thing to do, then and now and against the real and millenia long high threat from the East.
But some people like to push the eternal Russian propaganda points. If the X country will cede some lands then Russia (Germany) will behave, and US (Britain) should not get envolved.
The war was pushed by Churchill, who was funded by Jewish interests.
The war was pushed by FDR who armed USSR to the teeth. FDR and Stalin are the main culprits.
Rowling is a perfect example of the schizophrenic world-view of moderate leftists. She’s clearly not a true leftists radical. Her books always lacked minorities or radical politics and showed a great love toward her country and it’s culture/myths. Yet Rowling herself supports a political ideology that openly declares war on that country and it’s culture. She does this because she, like all moderate leftists, is motivated only by their fear/hate of the right-wing boogieman. She imagines all rich people (Tories) are elitist bullies, like the Malfoys, that all conservatives are secretly “blood purists” and anyone openly advocating for white people is surely another Voldemort/Hitler i.e. a sadistic psychopath who is motivated only by the desire to kill all non-whites. People like her are the biggest problem in modern western politics, because they enable the radical left to destroy our nations. They don’t actually want to live the world the radicals are planning to bring, but they are completely stuck ideologically because they can’t get over their blind prejudice toward anything right-wing. She will turn a blind eye when hostile immigrants rape British girls on massive scale, not because she hates whites and wants them to suffer like radical white leftists genuinely do, but because people like Rowling always fear association with the right more than anything else. Even after becoming the British’ left’s number 1 enemy she will still stay loyal.
J K Rowling is, above all, a Blairite, just like the rest of the British moneyed classes. The Blairite philosophy is simple: there are no good or bad acts, only good or bad people. Old J K knows she’s a Good Person. Ergo anything she does must be Good (with a capital G).
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.