OPINION

Stevan Balac Contributor

Illustrated by Fay Qian

Afoul spectre haunts our Third Year cohort at LSE. Like some cheap horror flick poltergeist, or J.K Rowling’s ‘Basilisk’, it slithers and pitter-patters across the empty corridors behind us and is spoken about only in hushed, wide eyed whispers. Indeed, to those of us who are embracing every moment of this final year, anyone raising the topic in conversation will undoubtedly have committed a social faux pas–and shall rightly be given a piercing glance, as if they have noisily broken wind during a Candlelit Vigil… for myself recently in a pub–through the gloomy real ale candlelight, I caught a glimpse into the tragic world of the Corporate Twentysomething.

Two chaps in their late twenties sat across from meone smartly (and smarmily) groomed and clad in a brilliant white lambswool jumper, the other a more portly, bawdy Falstaffian type– a perfect tech industry double act. I, the bright eyed undergrad, naturally asked them about their career choices, and was totally unprepared for the audial shell shock that I was about to receive. A cascade of tech and finance jargon ensued - there was talk of Ofcom, market resurgences, needles said they very unconvincingly, as if a grad job at EY was akin to getting ‘made’ in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. Twenty minutes later I sat half-comatose and drooling as they ranted on, wondering how many times I could pretend to nod affirmatively and put the now empty pint glass to my lips before they realised I wanted to slap them both across the cheeks simultaneously.

What grew increasingly clear, however, was that while they showed a healthy interest and ambition in their work, all the laughter and merriment they shared seemed to revolve entirely around their profession, their identity Whether it was jokingly accusing one another of being ‘industry moles’, or their illplaced hubris about ‘acting as a voice for the industry’ - their lives seemed to start and end with this strange, nondescript career. And, joking aside, there was a real sadness to think less than a decade ago they rolled into university as eighteen-year-olds - outlaws into a lively Western Honky Tonk. Now they have business cards and use words like ‘transposability’.

On a serious note, the traditional journey into these types of industries - the tech startup, the finance world, be what it may - seems to me a very sudden descent into a rather grey adult life. It seems too cruel a leap - straight from third year into the jaws of corporatism - and not one many seem to recover themselves from. I have indeed been tempted by the much lauded ‘year in industry.’ It has its benefits– a good and reliable salary, a growing

CV, and all the fun of life in the city. But on an aesthetic level it seems so damn sad, an untimely rupture from the umbilical cord of youth.

So do me a favour– leave it a few years, at least. Stay in education a little longer. Do a Masters for no reason. Be the 24 year old in the student bar that is now part of the furniture. Smoke those roll-ups. Go to those godawful festivals. Start a band and try to ‘make it big.’ Get your contrived, semi-literate middle class poetry published. Drink Echo Falls from the bottle. Resist!

In fairness, it's a good question. And there are a number of good options. There is the StayAt-LSE Masters (’how do you do, fellow kids?’), the try for Oxbridge Masters (‘still bitter I didn’t get in first time round’) and of course, travelling abroad for a year (‘‘I’ll get a bird tattoo on my shoulder and ‘find myself’ in South-East Asia.”)

All are great choices, depending on your gastric resilience to Indonesian street food. But, by far the most stomach-churning option is one that I witnessed being moved and tyrannical Managing Directors. They sang with glee about the Game of Thrones-esque dynamic within their offices, the seductive lure of rival companies vying for their (oh so!) valuable workplace qualities, and their undying loyalty to current employers. At one point, I made the mistake of posing a token question about my suitability for a career in consulting post uni, and sat amazed at the boorish, elongated reply.

‘No, I totally, literally, genuinely believe you could do that…’,

has become infamous for her transphobia– rather, in her words, her ‘gender-critical’ views.

JK Rowling may be best known as the author of a beloved children’s book series that spawned a major film franchise and a legion of loyal fans. But in recent years she

The basis of these views is that trans rights threaten women’s rights and safety. The rights under threat are always left vague, but usually imply one thing: that any transgender person is potentially a sexual predator that will use their presence around women to assault them. These justifications nearly always use bad faith bioessentialist feminist arguments whilst ironically enforcing gender roles and the gender binary, something that many feminists actively fight against.

For reference, bio-essentialist feminists believe that women are categorised as women by virtue of their possession of breasts, wombs, and the ability to bear children. It was a view commonly held during the first wave of feminism and was subsequently critiqued heavily during the second wave.

JK Rowling’s transphobic history is too long to fully delve into in this article, but it has manifested itself in various blog posts, support for fellow ‘gendercritical’ scholars and perhaps most notoriously, in Tweets. In 2020, she published a lengthy essay on her website, outlining ‘five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism’. She argued that replacing the legal definition of sex with gender would place victims of sexual and domestic abuse at risk, that the trans rights movement will affect children’s education reasons for this. Firstly, the UK media itself has a record of transphobia. JK Rowling is not the only celebrity to express anti-trans views or “concerns.” and safeguarding, that young women engaging in hormone therapy was a cause for concern, and that single sex spaces were under threat. Plainly put, these arguments are dog whistles: they insinuate that trans people are a hidden threat to women and children, while sounding innocuous to the untrained ear.

The UK media establishment has been largely accommodating of her views. There are two

Ricky Gervais and actor John Cleese are two figures also known for their anti-trans views. And second, because any person who dares to criticise her is faced with an angry mob of her supporters. Even Emma Watson, who starred in the film adaptations of JK Rowling’s books, has been ridiculed online after she publicly supported trans charity Mermaids, as have Eddie Redmayne and Daniel Radcliffe, who also publicly expressed support for trans women. Recently, Graham Norton, in an interview for the Times, was drawn in to discussing Rowling and her place in the trans debate, stating: “... my voice adds nothing to that discussion…Talk to the parents of trans kids, talk to doctors, talk to psychiatrists. Talk men stepping confidently onto their soapboxes to define what a woman is and throw their support behind rape and death threats to those who dare disagree.” She added: “You may mock, but it takes real bravery to come out as an Old Testament prophet.” Graham Norton had not even expresed a truly earnest support of the transgender community and, of course, said absolutely nothing about condoning rape or death threats or attempting to define what a woman was. But by merely refusing to participate in the so-called ‘trans debate’ and deferring to experts rather than a children’s author, he was enough of a traitor to incur Rowling’s wrath. The online furore that her response caused led to Graham Norton deleting his Twitter account. This whole incident is testament to the viciousness of the anti-trans lobby in the UK, spearheaded by JK Rowling, who has used her considerable wealth and influence to undermine trans rights, attacking anyone who expresses even the mildest of disagreement with her views.

Despite Rowling’s burgeoning influence, she maintains that she is the one being ‘cancelled’ for her views. Of course, there is no basis for this, as she remains a millionaire (something she boasted about in response to criticism) and her views are platformed in major news outlets across the UK. The BBC placed her essay on the concerns of trans activism placed third in their Russell Prize for best writing; the Times dedicated a whole spread to her criticism of the gender recognition bill in Scotland. Despite her view that her opinions are ‘controversial’, the reality is that they are incredibly mainstream. We do not live in a society that listens to trans people’s concerns nor is sympathetic to them, which is why JK Rowling’s views and concerns have been platformed and accommodated for so long.

Having someone as wealthy and powerful as JK Rowling present transphobic views, building up a charged online following, completely unchallenged and even embraced by the media landscape is dangerous for trans people. In my view, it

The measure remains blocked, but has persisted as a key front in the ‘culture wars’ of American politics.

More broadly, her views have strengthened an increasingly hostile environment for trans people. Trans conversion therapy was not included in the ban for gay conversion therapy in the UK. In the leadership election between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, both felt emboldened to mock trans people, particularly trans women, leaving little hope of any legal progress for trans.

Trans people are suffering the consequences of letting such rhetoric dominate has already had an impact. In Scotland, Rowling’s essay played an important role in a surge of political pushback that has compelled the Scottish government to water down much of its legislation on gender recognition. The bill remains the subject of heated debate in Scotland. Rowling’s arguments have also been used by the American Right in relation to the socalled “bathroom bill” which Democrats and activists warn will infringe on trans rights. the conversation. It is not just ‘offensive’, but actively dangerous. It's time for the media to be more critical and sceptical of her views and promote trans voices, or indeed take on Graham Norton’s advice and listen and platform real experts instead. It cannot be a ‘trans-debate’ if you only hear from one side.