Daniel Radcliffe: ‘Transgender women are women,’ we need to do more to support them

Opening night party for 'The Lifespan of a Fact' - Arrivals

I made “JK Rowling’s transphobic tweets” the header on yesterday’s links page because I didn’t want to talk about it but I knew it was a big story, for some reason. Rowling has shown her ass on trans rights several times, just as she’s shown her ass on race, inclusion and general LGBTQ rights and representation. Whenever she’s opened her mouth in the past three or four years, I’ve just been reminded of how grateful I am to have never been a Potterhead, so I don’t have to see a hero fall. For what it’s worth, any current reading of the Harry Potter universe reveals all kinds of problematic sh-t too, like naming a character “Cho Chang” and the anti-semitic sh-t and on and on. Anyway, Rowling is a TERF and she’s made “mocking trans women” into a thing for a while now. She’s pathetic and she twists herself in knots to defend her anti-trans bigotry. You know who is a good person though? Daniel Radcliffe, who wrote this for The Trevor Project yesterday after Rowling’s bulls–t.

I realize that certain press outlets will probably want to paint this as in-fighting between J.K. Rowling and myself, but that is really not what this is about, nor is it what’s important right now. While Jo is unquestionably responsible for the course my life has taken, as someone who has been honored to work with and continues to contribute to The Trevor Project for the last decade, and just as a human being, I feel compelled to say something at this moment.

Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I. According to The Trevor Project, 78% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported being the subject of discrimination due to their gender identity. It’s clear that we need to do more to support transgender and nonbinary people, not invalidate their identities, and not cause further harm.

I am still learning how to be a better ally, so if you want to join me in learning more about transgender and nonbinary identities check out The Trevor Project’s Guide to Being an Ally to Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. It’s an introductory educational resource that covers a wide range of topics, including the differences between sex and gender, and shares best practices on how to support transgender and nonbinary people.

To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you. I really hope that you don’t entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you. If these books taught you that love is the strongest force in the universe, capable of overcoming anything; if they taught you that strength is found in diversity, and that dogmatic ideas of pureness lead to the oppression of vulnerable groups; if you believe that a particular character is trans, nonbinary, or gender fluid, or that they are gay or bisexual; if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much.

Love always,

[From The Trevor Project]

This is just a perfect statement. I love Daniel Radcliffe so much. He’s worked with the Trevor Project for years, given money and met with the LGBTQ kids and shown consistently why he’s a great ally. And he’s right, if you’re a LGBTQ kid and you love the Potter universe, that’s between you and the books and don’t let Rowling’s crap ruin it for you. That being said, how could Rowling’s current nasty, exclusionary, reactionary, trolling vibe not ruin everything she’s ever written?

Opening night party for 'The Lifespan of a Fact' - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

107 Responses to “Daniel Radcliffe: ‘Transgender women are women,’ we need to do more to support them”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. TIFFANY says:

    Daniel seems to he a good person.

    That’s it.

    That’s the comment.

    • Snazzy says:

      He really does! Just an overall good guy. It could have gone so badly with that level of fame, and it almost did, but it didn’t.

    • Original Jenns says:

      He is lovely. What a wonderful person. In times like these, it is so good to hear his voice and his example!

    • Tiffany :) says:

      He does. He’s a good egg.

  2. Insomniac says:

    I saw him trending on Twitter last night and cringed, expecting the worst, but then I read this and remembered how much I like Daniel Radcliffe. That was such a lovely, intelligent, thoughtful statement.

  3. SarSte says:

    Trans lives matter. Black trans lives matter. <3

    • Adrianna says:

      Trans people need more help. They are passed over for jobs because of transphobic employers. Most live in dire poverty. They suffer unwarranted hate and discrimination at every turn, some of it at risk to their lives. Please do not discriminate against this segment of society. Their lives are difficult enough as it is.

      • Haapa says:

        Oppression isn’t a pie. Just because one group is oppressed, doesn’t mean another one isn’t. I fail to see how SarSte’s comment was discriminatory. Both statements can be true, without taking away from either.

  4. JOANN TONER says:

    I love the Trevor Project and the best right place for Daniel to make this statement.
    Great article.

  5. Alexandria says:

    I’ve always hoped Daniel and Keanu Reeves would never let me down.

  6. JJ McClay says:

    Man. Ten years ago, who would ever have thought that JK Rowling would end up in Slytherin…

    That was a great statement. It makes me happy that he’s such a good human. And I will be checking out that resource he recommended.

    • DeniseMich says:

      I think there is confusion on gender stereotyping.

      What makes a woman?

      What is the stereotype of what makes a woman?

      What does this mean for cisgender?

      I dont think it is clear for the over 40+ group what the definition of woman is now. If that is clarified maybe Rowling could get on board. She is unclear on the definition because femininity does not make a woman…what does?

      • Nic919 says:

        Wtf is this? People in their 40s were still kids in the 80s when LGBT issues were being discussed along with gender stereotypes. And they witnessed the death caused because of AIDS first hand along with the bigotry against LGBT people.

        Rowling is just a transphobic bigot and she needs to get over whatever she thought her definition of woman is and not impose it on everyone else. She wrote a bunch of kids books and made money and sadly she is given a voice that she has chosen to use to hurt many people.

      • Jensies says:

        @DeniseMich I don’t have enough time, Karen. Educate yourself on the difference between gender and sex. Trevor Project probably has good resources but there are literally millions of sites out there with this info. Don’t expect others to do your TERF-adjacent work for you.

      • Ange says:

        My 64 year old mother gets it and supports it. Heck even my 92 year old grandmother, while probably not the most up to speed, has said ‘live and let live’ more times that I can count when these issues come up. Even I’m almost 40 and have been a strong advocate for equality despite growing up in a typical country town with backwards attitudes on most everything. Age is not an excuse. And really who cares what ‘makes a woman?’

        So many of the things these TERFs want to use as a definition of womanhood don’t even apply to biological women. I don’t menstruate, I’ve never had kids, my mother has had a hysterectomy, women can present female but have male secondary sex characteristics and still give birth…. It’s all nonsense. The body and its functions are among the least reliable methods to assert ‘womanhood’ yet they cling to them because it’s all they have even though they’re utterly wrong.

      • Ange says:

        My 64 year old mother gets it and supports it. Heck even my 92 year old grandmother, while probably not the most up to speed, has said ‘live and let live’ more times that I can count when these issues come up. Even I’m almost 40 and have been a strong advocate for equality despite growing up in a typical country town with backwards attitudes on most everything. Age is not an excuse. And really who cares what ‘makes a woman?’

        So many of the things these TERFs want to use as a definition of womanhood don’t even apply to biological women. I don’t menstruate, I’ve never had kids, my mother has had a hysterectomy, women can present female but have male secondary sex characteristics and still give birth…. It’s all nonsense. The body and its functions are among the least reliable methods to assert ‘womanhood’ yet they cling to them because it’s all they have even though they’re utterly wrong.

      • Sarah says:

        Someone with her money could hire every gender and LGBTQ expert and educator on Earth if she truly doesn’t understand. She chooses not to.

        For everyone else…Google is free.

    • rayvyn2k says:

      She’s not welcome in Slytherin House.

  7. Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

    The Trevor Project t is a great organization, one of my favorite. So glad he is a supporter.

  8. Marty says:

    It is really some next level Karen bulls*it to have trans people tell you “Hey, this is offensive” and have her go “Well actually….”

    She couldn’t have just sat there and counted her money.

    • Tuntmore says:

      I have to say, I wish people would pick another name besides “Karen” to apply to oblivious white women of a certain age. Mostly because I know more women of color named Karen than white women named Karen. So for me the name doesn’t bring to mind a white soccer mom with a blonde bob, at all.

      If I’m thinking of a name that screams “oblivious white female,” it’s something like Madysynn, Mary-Kate, Heather, or Bridget.

      • Tea & Crumpets says:

        “heather” would be perfect. *cackle*

      • Erinn says:

        I think you won’t see Madysynn’s in that context because most “Karen’s” are a bit older – 40+ in context of the “I want to talk to your manager” types. I’ve personally only met white Karen’s to my knowledge, all close in age to my parents.

        This just reminded me of Disney’s Hercules when Pain and Panic are talking to Hades like “Remember a few years ago, every other boy was named Jason and the girls were all named Brittany?”

        But my favorite cousin is also named Heather (and she HATES her name, but like it) and I feel like that one got plenty of hate already from the movie Heather’s. She’s this sweet, 5’1″ vegetarian veterinary tech who is about as far from the “let me speak to your manager” type as you can get haha.

      • Case says:

        I think we should call people what they are instead of “Karen.” 1) It sucks for people actually named Karen (I know a Karen, she’s a wonderful person); 2) It’s name calling; 3) It lessens the power of calling people out for their behavior. Let’s call people racist if they’re racist, transphobic if they’re transphobic, etc.

      • Ennie says:

        Nooo, not Heather! A friend of mine from a Southern US state is a teacher who is open minded, liberal and outspoken. She doesn’t mind posting things that make the conservative people in her life twist and shout against her opinions , she can argue Intelligently without getting angry. I just love her.

      • SomeChick says:

        Sorry, Becky, that ship has sailed.

        I don’t think anyone thinks it literally refers to people actually named Karen. It has entered the cultural lexicon and it is what it is.

        I’d like to see Karens making donations to PoC organizations and just signing it “Karen.” If enough did it, it would get positive attention for the Karens and for the organizations both. “Karens Step Up, Fund HBCU Scholarships” would make a great headline.

      • Heather H says:

        Please not Heather. I could not be less of a ‘Karen’ and would hate to have my name associated with such terrible behavior :(

    • MaryContrary says:

      That’s what I wonder too. Like how awful do you have to be to attack people who are already victimized?

      • lucy2 says:

        I know, I really don’t understand why she is compelled to publicly weigh in, and why inclusive language bothers her so much that she would make snippy remarks against people who simply are trying to exist. She needs to really do some soul searching, and actually LISTEN to some transgender people share their experiences.

  9. Jerusha says:

    That’s a lovely statement and Daniel Radcliffe has always seemed like a lovely person.

  10. JJ McClay says:

    Why is this the hill that she wants to die on? It is so puzzling to me. There are so many things she could focus on instead and do some actual good… instead she wants to punch down at vulnerable people and spread lies and mistruths? #notmyhogwarts

    • Abby says:

      Exactly. Why did she pick this issue to fight about? I’m so confused. There’s so much wrong in the world that she could be using her influence, dollars and Twitter fingers to make a change for good. Why is she doing this?

      It’s so disappointing to me. Can’t imagine how fans of her work who are trans feel. She’s burning her legacy down to the ground. For what?

    • Turtledove says:

      I had the same question. I mean, at the end of the day, it would be beautiful if everyone could just be kind and supportive to everyone. But I (sadly) understand that is not the case. That said, why can’t she just mind her own damn business? Like someone above said, go shut up and count your money. It seems just bizarre to me that she wants to double and triple down on this. To what end?

      Also, her “talking points” are stupid even if you exclude trans women. There are lots of reasons why cis women don’t always menstruate as well.

  11. Edith says:

    I thought Rowling’s objection was to the term “menstrators.” What does that have to do with transgender women?

    • Anna06 says:

      Sort of. She responded to an article equating the term menstruators with the term women. When in fact many women don’t menstruate, whether because they’ve experienced menopause or because they are trans.

      • Edith says:

        I’m asking why Daniel Radcliffe would say in his statement that transgender women are women, when Rowling was not even talking about transgender women.

      • emmy says:

        Edith, she was though. She equated people who menstruate with women. Not all people who menstruate identify as women, first of all. And trans women (among others) don’t menstruate so in her mind they’re not women. Her stance becomes clearer if you read previous remarks she’s made on the subject.

    • Tea & Crumpets says:

      When you say “people who menstruate,” you are being inclusive– there are transmen and non-binary people who have uteruses and menstruate and they are not women. She objected to language that recognized the existence of transmen and non-binary people.

    • Margles says:

      Nobody used the term “menstruators”. She objected to the phrase “people who menstruate,” which is inclusive of transmen and non-binary people who menstruate. She apparently was enraged that the article didn’t just say “women”. Because apparently all women menstruate? Or something? Her comment was actually pretty insulting to transmen and non-binary people. Because apparently she doesn’t think they exist?

      • Edith says:

        But didn’t Daniel Radcliffe also forget trans men exist by stating only that “trans women are women”?

      • Margles says:

        @Edith. No. If I say “circles are shapes,” does that mean that I’m saying triangles don’t have three sides?

      • Edith says:

        If I said something about circles and you replied with something about triangles I would wonder why you were changing the subject. My whole point is that Rowling is clearly talking about her understanding of the word “woman,” and in Radcliffe’s statement he said only “trans women are women” and nothing about trans men.

    • KL says:

      It was part of a collection of tweets (and defenses of Maya Forstater) that make Rowling’s position VERY clear, which is that does specifically does not accept trans women as “real” women. She also posted links from transphobic lesbians who name trans women as a threat to their community. (Speaking as a cis lesbian: trans lesbians are a part of my community, not a threat to it.) In naming anyone who menstruates as a woman, Rowling was also making it clear she considers trans men and afab non-binary people to be women. She’s not going to attack them outright, because their assigned sex at birth puts them in what she considers an oppressed class — unlike those assigned male at birth.

      Her attacks are, consistently, against trans women. Radcliffe came to their defense because they are the ones being invalidated by Rowling’s words or actions. Trans men and non-binary people aren’t happy with her either! But they recognize the aim of her tweets is to specifically invalidate the experiences of trans women AS women. So that is what is being addressed, specifically.

      • Edith says:

        My point is that Radcliffe seems to forget trans men exist in his statement. He only seems concerned with trans women. I’m asking you to think about why that might be.

    • Smore says:

      Trans men menstruate. Trans women don’t. Trans men are not women, and trans women are women. She is trying to erased people’s identities with that statement, which is what the phrase “sex is real” is all about. It’s a dog whistle about how trans women are just men wanting to invade women’s space and invalidate women’s experiences, and how trans men are just confused lesbian who need who need to “be saved” by detransitioning. That is why the comment is transphobic, because it’s about how trans men who menstruate are just women who don’t know better, and trans women who don’t menstruate are just men calling themselves women. It’s harmful and hateful to erase people like this. It’s no different than telling gays and lesbians they are just straight people who are confused.

      • Edith says:

        Wait, “sex is real” means all of that? I feel like you’re putting words in her mouth.

  12. Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

    Women who are born without uteruses also will not experience menopause, but we all experience growing older and the changes that come with that. I truly do not get this obsession with periods that TERFs have– it is such a tired argument. Are we in the sixth grade?

    For myself, I’m a cis woman who got rid of her periods a long time ago, and I barely noticed menopause. Never had a hot flash. Neither did my mother.

    One thing I have learned in life is that people are not all the same, they do not feel the same way about everything, and women do not universally experience their femaleness in exactly the same way. Never have. We are all wildly different from each other. Being female is not a zero sum game.

    You have grown up with your sets of constraints and I am sure my experiences have been wildly different from yours for myriad reasons. Trans women have their own lives, experiences, and constraints and should not have to pass these weird more-female-than-thou tests to simply be accepted as they are and accepted as being women. It’s cruel, degrading, and oppressive to impose that on anyone. Policing other women’s bodies or life experiences (that you know little about) is not peaceful, accepting, or feminist.

    • Yamayo says:

      I think the problem is denying biology.

      Also the slogan trans women are women, but women are cis.
      All over the world women, girls and foetuses experience violence because of their biology- transwomen and cis women should stand in solidarity on that.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        Do you see a subtle warping of feminism – almost a masculine weaponising of the narrative?
        Because we’re always led by the media gaze to women’s spaces, so that women’s spaces have become the battleground. Male spaces remain intact. Women are simultaneously fighting for feminism and recognition.
        I agree with Rowling on period poverty. It’s something I work on, hard. Having a period isn’t fun, it’s bloody hard work.
        It seems that much of the battle occludes the fight to allow any woman to deal with their periods with dignity.

      • Anna06 says:

        Sex is biology, gender is not.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        Even the biology is more complicated than that. Nobody is denying it– we are however discovering that sex is actually really complex. Science supports this.

        Trans women and cis women are all women. Our lives do not have to be exactly the same. And by the way, trans-women experience a great deal of violence just for being who they are. Don’t get me started. And there are cis women who benefit very nicely from patriarchy and will defend it to their last breath. We are not all the same but we are all women.

      • Also Ali says:

        @AN – It seems that much of the battle occludes the fight to allow any woman to deal with their periods with dignity.

        This! She’s being a deliberate ass in her comments and clouding the real and important issue that having a period puts a person at a disadvantage in many, many circumstances.

      • Tea & Crumpets says:

        But women are not the only ones who have periods. Transmen also can have periods. Non-binary people can have periods. We need to recognize everyone here.

        I just talked recently to a transman who was clipped over the head while changing a tampon in a privy in the men’s room (the appropriate place for him to be), and he had much to say about periods putting him at an extreme disadvantage. Surely we can talk about this without insisting that it only applies to people who identify as women.

      • Margles says:

        Transwomen are women but women are cis? Transwomen are women and cis-women are women. They are all women. What are you talking about?

      • Margles says:

        @Andrew’s Nemesis. What do “women’s spaces” have to do with transmen and non-binary people needing assistance with their periods? What are you talking about?

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Margles I think you’re deliberately misunderstanding my point.
        The absolute point, in a world full of absolute intolerable sexism, is that all the attention re: trans is being focused on women’s spaces, not men’s. We’re fighting a massive battle to gain even near to equal treatment in the global north; in the global south, where women in many countries are routinely excluded and vilified for the fact that they bleed, the culture wars being played out on Twatter only increase their problems. I have sympathy for anyone who’s been marginalised; don’t think of calling me out on that. The fact that all the attention is being drawn to women’s spaces not only lets men off scot-free, it’s causing battles among women, labelling etc. Certainly isn’t helping with Period Poverty.

      • Also Ali says:

        I have no issue with using the word person instead of woman or girl but period issues are specific to a person who menstruates whether that person identifies as male or female. Do trans men get lost in the conversation? Yes, so highlighting period issues unique to trans men is also an important part of the conversation but it isn’t the entire conversation and my point was that it sucks that JK had to go and be divisive about an already undersupported issue.

        In part:

        An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.

      • Margles says:

        @Andrew’s Nightmare. Ah yes. You have “sympathy”. Just not enough to, you know, do anything or even want to hear about their problems.

        Also, that was a comically disingenuous response considering it was JKR who started the twitter fight by arguing about the terms the article used.

      • KL says:

        @Andrew’s Nemesis

        So I don’t allow myself to take the cheap shots without at least one or two attempts to genuinely educate. No Idea if you’re genuinely open to that, but here goes:

        It’s a logical fallacy to assume “trans is being focused on women’s spaces, not men’s” and that this is a kind of misogyny. What you are seeing is instead the cumulative effect of sexism and transphobia. One of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason, trans people fight for legal recognition and the rights that come with it is because of the massive violence leveled against them on a daily basis: physical, emotional, sexual, etc. Because violence against women is RECOGNIZED as a social problem, that only redoubles trans women’s efforts to be recognized as women so that the violence against them can be rightfully categorized, admitted as existing by those with cis privilege, and addressed by the same political and social machines which are given the resources meant to address those issues. There is an actual epidemic (officially! according to the AMA!) of murder committed against trans women, and yet it goes largely unaddressed because of the attitude of “they’re not really women, who cares if the freaks are murdered,” which while expected in conservative corners is deeply antithetical to radical politics and social conscience of the feminist movement. It is not a “culture war” to draw attention on social media to the oppressed group who is being murdered at exponential rates. The vocabulary used, the attitudes adjusted and legal protections put in place — these things are meant to stop actual blood from being spilled.

        Now, studies show (I don’t know how the moderator here feels about lots of copy&pasted links, so maybe google “violence against trans men”) that trans men experience almost equal violence. But they do not have the name avenues of protection because — and this is where I take umbrage at the idea that feminism is an inherently female space, it is not — men are not SUPPOSED to be victims of sexual assault , and of course much of American feminism was constructed without any awareness of how it operated on cis privilege. (Or heterosexual privilege. Or white privilege. Do you want to go there? Because if we’re talking about feminism’s problematic history with recognizing women who don’t fit a set category, I will go there.) In order to have that violence recognized or addressed, many trans men will be treated as de facto women — sent to gynecologists for examination who address and treat them as women, or shelters that do the same, have their reports recorded by police, ditto. Sometimes their experiences will be reported as happening TO women. Some will actually de-transition in order to be granted access to the resources that will save their lives, resources unavailable to them as trans men. Others will be unable to, or will even prefer to never see justice done, never receive treatment, and even go back to the source of that violence — as long as it means they get to live as men.

        So it is in extreme ignorance and bad faith to assume that trans women’s very presence in “female spaces” is a targeted attack against cis women. It is not about “female spaces.” It is about an appeal to a movement which proposes sweeping social change on the basis of equity, with the hope of equality. It’s only if we imagine that men are biologically abusive, instead of abusive in their immense privilege, that it’s hard to imagine why an oppressed class would come to those similarly oppressed in solidarity, instead of the people who only benefit from continued systems of oppression. We can only conceive of feminism being somehow hijacked by women, when they’re only shining a light on unquestioned privilege, if we fundamentally discount them AS women. If you think feminism is only for you and people like you — and maybe those people who fought to be included (women of color, queer women) ages ago and it’s too much work to oust them now — then consider that maybe, you are not really a feminist. You’re just saying, “got mine, now close the door.”

      • I pet goat 2 says:

        @KL, you’re wonderful. Absolutely amazing post.

      • Smore says:

        @Andrew’s Nemesis As someone who was born, raised, and has only ever lived in the Global South, we can speak for ourselves, thank you. We don’t need any of you colonizers hand-wranggling about poor Global South women who are discriminated for bleeding. You are talking about the same women whose ancestral cultures never cared about any of this sex/binary gender shit until white supremacy erased our ways, so please don’t use us to make your arguments.

  13. Hikaru says:

    It’s so great that we live in a society where members of the male sex get to educate us women on what makes us women.
    I didn’t know I was a social construct until recently when trans activists let me know that my female humanity is not what makes me a woman, it’s the make up and dresses.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:


    • Corinne says:

      I too am really enjoying being told my sexuality is incorrect, and that I should be attracted to a person’s pronouns and femininity rather than their sex. Super eye opening to be realise that same sex attraction is wrong and that genital preferences are transphobic!

    • Margles says:

      What is your “female humanity”? And the idea of gender expression as a social construct is new to you? You thought wearing dresses was biologically determined?

      • Tea & Crumpets says:

        When people start using the biology argument, I always wished that they read more history as well as more science. It wasn’t that long ago that many people really believed women were in fact the biologically “weaker” sex, that their brains were smaller, that study or sports would make them go insane, and that women were biologically made to be mother and caregivers– and nothing else. That physical exercise would lead to madness and sterility. That gender conformity was all for the sake of their health. When police raided lesbian bars, they would let the gender-conforming women (those wearing dresses and makeup) go and would beat and arrest those who were wearing “men’s clothing.” People in my mother’s generation actually considered this to be natural and right and the best way to “protect” women who fulfilled their “natural” roles. People used exactly the same rationale TERFS are using today to defend this.

      • lisanne says:

        Hikaru is not talking about gender expression when she uses the term “female humanity,”‘ she’s talking about being a biological female. And how it impacts her lived experience. And she is actually disputing the idea that her gender expression (make up and dresses) is what makes her a woman.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        She is using a biological determinist argument though– which has been used in the past to enforce gender conformity. It’s arbitrary and betrays a lack of understanding of the actual biology of sex. Sex is way more nuanced than that and whatever her feelings may be, the facts support a larger picture.

        She is also resorting to straw man arguments– absolutely nobody is arguing that clothing makes you female. However in the past, if you were deemed to be female, you were required to dress a certain way, and gender non-conformity was punished by violence. Biology was always used as the excuse. You could say that people who enforced fendern norms were also just being true to their feelings but that doesn’t excuse it.

    • babsjohnson says:


    • KL says:

      That’s not what a social construct means, and that’s not what trans activists are telling you. Maybe you find society difficult because you’re just not up to the rigorous tasks of reading, listening, and discussing — which, yeah, would leave other people no choice but to “tell” you stuff.

    • AMM says:

      Your female humanity? It’s your chromosomes that don’t define your gender. Anyone who looks typically feminine has suffered the sexism women face, and anyone who looks masculine can still suffer from period poverty. That’s the whole point. It’s not about putting on a dress and doing your makeup to make you a woman (you know many drag queens aren’t trans right?) it’s about how people who identify as and present as women face women issues. And those who do not identify with and present as men still face biologically female issues. You can’t exclude someone from a narrative that affects them just because they don’t have the same chromosomes as you.

    • Juliet says:

      I’m with you.

    • WIntryMix says:

      For the love of all that is holy, pick up a biology text written in the last 30 years before you embarrass yourself with these 5th-grade biology based essentialism arguments.

      Or don’t. The future will be fine either way, as this kind of thinking is consigned to the dustbin of history.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      Did he say it was about dresses or make-up though? And yes, sometimes there are going to be situations where the woman is the one being insensitive toward a marginalized group and a man is the better ally to that community. Daniel managed to show support to the trans community without saying anything misogynistic about JK. Nothing wrong with that.

  14. Tuntmore says:

    JKR is an a-hole. That was obvious from her support and defense of Johnny Depp, and she’s making it even more obvious with her remarks against trans people.

    Daniel Radcliffe is an amazing, intelligent, caring human being. I’m just glad that white men like him exist, who use their inherent privilege to try to make things better for historically marginalized groups.

  15. Lua says:

    I agree with his statement. Don’t let her ruin the magic you felt from the books,. Instead focus on how great he and Emma turned out and focus on them instead.

    • Jesma says:

      The books are too huge and popular to be affected at this point. They will become classics. Roald Dahl was an antisemite and J.M. Berrie was probably a pedophile, but their books remain beloved classics.

  16. Bettyrose says:

    Re the anti-Semitism comment. Was that in the books or something JK Rowling said? I was a faithful reader of the books and don’t recall anti-Semitism (which is something I would typically notice). Dumbledore was gay which was a pretty big deal at the time.

    • MaryContrary says:

      The goblins are bankers with hooked noses. It’s a horrible, definitely anti-semitic trope. I never really picked up on it but when we took our kids to Wizarding World in FL, my teens saw it on the Escape from Gringotts ride, and commented immediately. Ugh.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Thanks. I recall that from the movies now that you mention it but don’t remember if that description is in the books. Been a loooong time.

    • Jesma says:

      In the book it basically says the goblins run the bank. The physical criticisms mostly come from the movies. I don’t know how much of a hand she had in picking the way they would look on screen.

    • ennie says:

      There were jewish wizards at Hogwarts, and the witches from the Beasts movie are jewish too. In every film I’ve seen the goblins look like that, and in popular tales they are attracted to shiny old, precious stones, etc. More or less like the dwarves in the Lord of the Rings.
      I am in no way a Rowling apologist. I blocked her (and Trump ) in twitter a long time ago. I did not want to see her tweets ruin my feed, especially after she was quarreling with a fan about Depp support, I could not longer stand that. She has had some good points with her being mouthy and not keeping quiet about some worthy things , but her bad facets were too much to me.
      Love the books, and i don’t want them ruined.

  17. Valiantly Varnished says:

    JK is trash. And she’s perfectly fine being trash. Looking back at her books now it’s clear that they were written from the very narrow vision of a white woman with no real experience with people who dont look like her. And the revisionist history she tries to apply to the books after the fact reveals that. And dont even get me started on her support of Johnny Depp…

    • SomeChick says:

      Totally agree. There is a lot of the cis-white-het-male superiority going on there. A LOT. It is everywhere you look.

      Then there is the whole royalist aspect – Harry Potter (Potter would indicate a poor commoner, which he is portrayed as) and the Half-Blood Prince, just to name one. He literally lived under the stairs and was seen as genetically inferior to the other students.

      Blood and inheritance are so important in that world. Yes, Harry transcends that, but he has to constantly prove himself, and he is still seen as Other.

      In other words, Harry is “One of the Good Ones.”

      They also play many of the characters off as a joke/stereotype. I found the Professor Trewlaney character hugely disrespectful. You want to make bank off a world full of magic and divination, but you make the divination instructor a one dimensional joke. I’m sure Rowling’s research took full advantage of the actual work and scholarship of people who have seriously studied those traditions for years, going back generations. She took what she wanted and then she made a mockery of it.

      The whole thing is suffused by sexism too, but I haven’t got all day.

      She’s the het/white/cis/male hegemony dressed up in a pointy hat. I am not here for it.

      I am here for Daniel Radcliffe! He seems like a smart, compassionate fellow. Too bad he is so young, hahaha. I’ve never really thought he was especially hot, but I am definitely attracted to compassionate and smart. I like him better all the time.

      • ennie says:

        Harry was actually from a very important and ancient wizarding family, being born from a “mud blood” mother or not. He was actually befriended first by Draco, but chose not to be his friend according to his mean acts. Hermione was the one belittled from her origins.
        Harry was belittled in book one because he did not know anything about that world, which was a poor writing (and movie) take, as other neo wizards as ins hermione, would be also be in the same boat, but are never referenced as suffering from the same ignorance as Harry, or he hardly relates to them, only to Hermione who seems to almost forget her “muggle” world ties.
        The half blood prince, Snape, was from a poor wizarding family on mother’s side (prince last lame) and a non wizard, a “muggle” father. Rowling liked to create weird or misguiding names for her characters, but I do not agree with what you are referring to.

      • SomeChick says:

        The concept of “half-blood” is inherenty racist/royalist. “Mud blood” is even more problematic.

        I don’t want to yuck your yum, and I know people really love those books, but I stand by my take.

  18. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I, of course, agree with everyone here. I continue to be wholly frustrated and angry that I’m still fighting for people to be left the f*ck alone. Why take a human being, any human applies, but especially those living with fear, hostility, racism, oppression, exclusion, etc. etc. etc., and pile on more sh*t ? Why would you do that? Why would anyone do that? On purpose? And loudly, for everyone to hear the mental illness oozing out of your frakked up mouth?

    Wanna know something odd lol? Today of all days, I picked up watching The Flash where I left off three years ago (the other post about the pig actor being fired), and where I left off is when “Malfoy” is Flash’s boss at the precinct. This is some bizarre separation degrees or something lol!

  19. babco says:

    Sex is biology.
    Women are women, not menstruators.

    • Margles says:

      Maybe you should tell JKR that since she was the one who threw a tantrum because the article about menstruation didn’t use the term “women.”

      • KL says:

        The article did name “women and girls”, actually, along with “non-binary persons” and people who menstruate. It was just the headline which used the most inclusive statement in the fewest words. Which makes this whole debacle even more obvious in its aggression towards inclusivity.

      • SomeChick says:

        KL, you on fiyah today! Keep it coming!

    • Smore says:

      What was that other bigotry that used biology as its main argument? Oh, I remember, white supremacy. Eugenics. And so on.

    • WintryMix says:

      What a mercy for the rest of us that the actual world is far richer and more variegated than the stick figures that evidently populate your imaginings.

  20. Erinn says:

    Some of these comments, man.

    I read this earlier today, and thought it was important:
    “Biology has been used as bigotry as long as biology has been a thing. (See scientific racism, eugenics, and the justification for slavery that black people were intellectually inferior to white people)”

    as well as:
    “Any women’s rights movement that relies on the same hierarchical and gender policing that patriarchy does can hardly be called feminism.”

    Major props to Daniel, though. This was a very nice gesture, and he handled it so gracefully.

    • emmy says:

      THANK YOU! Biology has been used against women and everyone non male/cis/het for centuries and the feminist movement tried to dismantle the notion that biology gives anyone license to discriminate. And look how we’ve come around to the dark side. It’s horrifying.

      • Also Ali says:

        That’s the whole point of highlighting issues around menstruation. It’s a function of biology used to disadvantage and abuse menstruating people especially those people without access to basic education, sanitation and healthcare.

    • Smore says:

      Oops, I should have scrolled just a bit down before I made my comment. But thanks for making this point too, Erinn :)

  21. Charfromdarock says:

    “I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans.”

    This is a direct quote from JKR’s twitter.

    She is deliberately being obtuse. It takes a special kind of privileged ignorance to think people aren’t discriminated on the basis of being trans.

    She also played the I have trans friends card.

    All this time, I thought she modeled Hermoine after herself but she really it was Dolores.

    Daniel is years younger than her but far wiser and more compassionate.

  22. AMM says:

    What good comes from gatekeeing “women’s issues”? Why are so many CBs agreeing with JK that periods should only be talked about when using the term woman? What harm comes from saying “people who have periods?”. Only we, cis women, get to be marginalized for periods and pregnancy? Is it some kind of badge of honor? I really don’t get it.

    • I pet goat 2 says:

      Yeah really disappointed in this comment section. Probably lots of old white ladies!
      (What, don’t like biological reduction? 😏)

      • WintryMix says:

        @I pet goat 2: I really do believe that there’s a generational element to this conflict. I think that white women of a certain age are so devoted to their self-image as eternal victims that they can’t psychologically manage the increased cultural attention that intersectionalism is getting these days. And I say that as a white woman over 40! But honestly, the vast majority of the people supporting JKR on Twitter appear to be her exact demographic (minus the money!).

      • I pet goat 2 says:

        Thanks for the comment, wintrymix, and for being inclusive in your feminism (which is the only way feminism works). And I think you’re right – I just find it sad to read. Even if someone’s not up to date on sex, gender, and the various complex and non-binary inflections and presentations, wouldn’t they at least be aware that gatekeeping is detrimental to the cause at large? Divide and conquer is the oldest damn technique in the world. Even if they think they’re profiting, they’re really not. And all of this during pride and during this revolutionary shift. Do they not know that most all we’ve learned about organizing, acitivism, and resisting we owe to Black womxn? Ah … 😖

        ETA: girl, over 40 isn’t old. Youve got most of your life ahead of you. ☺️

  23. MissF says:

    Daniel Radcliffe is pure loveliness. All 5’5 of him ❤️

  24. Rivkaj says:

    Daniel Radcliffe is everything. Joanne sucks

  25. serena says:

    “nobody can touch that” I agree. I was feeling so disappointed at JKR but honestly I’m not gonna cancell all the books because they have so many positive messages. I love Daniel Radcliffe’s points, this man is such a jem.