No, J. K. Rowling has not been ‘radicalised’

Stephen Fry’s comments on the gender debate betray his fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.

What exactly is ‘radical’ about believing that there are two sexes, and that women’s rights depend upon a recognition of this fact? On the Show People podcast last week, Stephen Fry made the astonishing claim that J. K. Rowling’s acceptance of these basic truths is evidence that she has been ‘radicalised by TERFs’ and is ‘a lost cause’.

This, of course, is palpable nonsense. That a man as intelligent as Fry would make such a preposterous claim tells us a great deal about the culture wars of our time. On the one hand, it could point to the particular susceptibility of the most well-educated to be gulled by ideology. On the other, it could simply be another example of a phenomenon with which we have all grown depressingly familiar. That is to say, most of those who wade into these cultural disputes simply haven’t taken the trouble to understand what it is they are criticising.

Fry knows that there are only two sexes and that no human being has ever changed sex. Yet he has not examined his assumption that there is such a thing as a ‘gender identity’, and so is proceeding from a false premise. Furthermore, he is presuming that anyone who has not accepted this premise must have malevolent intentions. He has evidently not read Rowling’s essay on why she has taken her principled stand, or thought about the implications of men who believe they are women being allowed to enter female spaces. These are major flaws for one who claims to be so wedded to rational thinking.

The accusation of ‘radicalisation’ takes a number of forms. Throughout the history of Marxist writing, for instance, unbelievers have routinely been accused of suffering from ‘false consciousness’. Similarly, members of the hostile and intolerant fringe of the gender-critical movement have often accused women who choose to use ‘preferred pronouns’ of having being ‘groomed’. These activists are essentially collectivists who believe that all women must hold identical views, and that any who take a contrary stance are not thinking for themselves. Hence their insistence on the kind of purity spirals that mirror those of the trans activist movement.

Fry’s recent remarks prove that it is certainly possible for smart people to be hoodwinked into idiotic ways of thinking, but we should probably put this down to a lack of intellectual curiosity rather than ‘radicalisation’. This is not to suggest that radicalisation is not real, but the term should be used sparingly and accurately. Too often it is thrown about promiscuously by those who wish to dismiss their detractors and avoid engaging with the arguments. I can think of nothing more narcissistic than the belief that those who disagree must have fallen victim to some form of brainwashing.

The charge of ‘radicalisation’ can also be deployed cynically for tactical purposes. It is akin to the tendency to dismiss alternative opinions as ‘phobias’. For example, a Christian might object to gay marriage out of a profound religious conviction that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. But rather than simply disagree with the Christian position, an opponent could brand this person a ‘homophobe’. This has the effect of pathologising the subject as one whose opinions are symptomatic of a kind of illness or condition. The same goes for ‘transphobia’, ‘whorephobia’, ‘xenphobia’, ‘enbyphobia’, ‘vegaphobia’ and ‘fatphobia’. The list is forever expanding.

This tactic is likely behind the Labour government’s attempts to create an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’ which will doubtless later form the justification to reintroduce blasphemy laws to the UK by stealth. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ – often levelled against those who simply mock or criticise Islamic beliefs – is deliberately engineered to undermine the legitimacy of any dissent. This is why Islamic fundamentalists in Iran were so keen to popularise the term in the 1970s. To respond to challenges to religious dogma with an accusation of ‘Islamophobia’ is the equivalent of saying ‘you’ve been radicalised’. It means your opinion is not grounded in rational thought, and can therefore be dismissed.

This is why Fry’s claim about Rowling is so wrongheaded. Not only are her views reasonable and carefully considered, they also have the benefit of being rooted in sound logic and incontestable facts. If Fry wishes to propose that we each have a gendered soul, and that society ought to be reorganised around this supernatural conviction, then it is clearly he who has failed the test of clear and critical thinking. He is entitled to his religious beliefs, but his suggestion that anyone who fails to play along is ‘a lost cause’ is the far more radical stance.

---