J.K. Rowling and the Dastardly DARVO Playbook

Well hello there PITT crew, today we are going to discuss J.K. Rowling’s lengthy tweet tirade, DARVO, and a New York Times Article written by Jeremy W. Peters.

Starting with The New York Times titled "Transgender Activists Question the Movement's Confrontational Approach." This article argues that "all-or-nothing tactics" are hurting transgender rights in the face of "diminishing public support."1 The piece selectively quotes advocates to suggest that criticism of misgendering and opposition to trans athlete bans are "unreasonable" positions alienating potential allies.2

Notably, the Times article goes out of its way to defend Rowling, painting her as a victim who faced "unsparing criticism" merely3 for "disagree[ing] with denying any relationship between sex and biology."4 This framing downplays the harm of Rowling's anti-trans rhetoric while lending credence to her claim of persecution.

However, the article's "both sides" narrative crumbles under scrutiny. For example, advocate Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen's quote about "mak[ing] it OK for someone to change their minds" was taken out of context - he was referring to persuading undecided people, not virulent anti-trans activists.5 The piece's slant has sparked backlash from the transgender community. For an in-depth and thorough review of the Times’ article, I highly recommend ’s article on it here:

New York Times Journalist Says Solution For Trans Rights Is To Be Nicer To JK Rowling

null

Erin In The Morning

It is against this backdrop that Rowling penned her incendiary response, slamming the "insulting" Times article while leveling further accusations against trans activists. ⁴ Her aggressive rebuttal to a piece that defended her highlights the DARVO tactics at play - even when granted sympathetic press coverage, Rowling cannot resist attacking her critics and portraying herself as the real victim.

This context is crucial for understanding Rowling's statement not as a defensive reaction to unfair criticism, but as part of a larger pattern of anti-trans rhetoric and manipulation. By selectively engaging with skewed media narratives, Rowling is able to play the victim while actively perpetuating harm against the transgender community. The issue here is not that the Times’ article did not defend her as a victim, but that it did not paint her as a enough of a victim. She had to one-up just how much of a victim she is so that she can make a few more jabs against transgender people.

This leads us to DARVO. For those who don’t know, DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is a manipulation strategy commonly employed by abusers and those who hold positions of social power when confronted with their harmful behavior6. It should come as no surprise, then, to find this pattern in J.K. Rowling's recent response to the New York Times suggesting trans activists might want to reconsider confrontational approaches - a response in which she, ironically, chose confrontation78.

Since her first anti-trans tweets in June 20209, Rowling has masterfully positioned herself as a victim while actively initiating and escalating anti-trans rhetoric10. Despite claiming she "never set out to upset anyone"11, her digital footprint tells a different story - one that began long before her public stance, with liked tweets criticizing the transgender rights movement as far back as 201712. This pattern of escalation - from quiet likes to public tweets to lengthy manifestos - reveals a deliberate choice to engage in and amplify anti-trans discourse, rather than the defensive posture she claims1314.

In her latest statement, Rowling demonstrates a textbook case of DARVO: she denies the legitimate criticism of her actions, attacks trans rights advocates with broad generalizations, and reverses the narrative to position herself and her allies as the true victims of systematic persecution15. This rhetorical sleight of hand would be impressive if it weren't so dangerous.

What follows is our usual systematic examination, fact-checking, and debunking. This time, of Rowling's statement to discover and defend the truth and expose the manipulation techniques that have become all too common in anti-trans discourse16. By understanding these strategies, we can better recognize and counter them, ensuring that legitimate debate isn't derailed by bad-faith arguments and manufactured victimhood.

Combined with previous articles I have written on TERF tactics; The Alison Article showing “Just Asking Questions” and the use of the Motte and Bailey, Kat Highsmith and their “If not by reason by volume/repetition” approach17, we now we have a prime example of DARVO to examine from JK Rowling. If we find two more we can get a TERF bingo!

Fantastic Fears and Where She Plants Them: Examining the Anti-Trans Narratives

Rowling's DARVO Strategies

Throughout her statement, J.K. Rowling employs textbook DARVO tactics to avoid accountability for the harm caused by her anti-trans rhetoric. DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender" - a manipulative strategy used by abusers to escape responsibility.18

Rowling begins by denying the impact of her own words, instead painting herself as the victim of "unsparing criticism" simply for "disagree[ing] with denying any relationship between sex and biology."19 This framing obscures the reality that Rowling has spread inflammatory misinformation, such as claiming that transgender activists are "denying the existence of sex" and referring to inclusive language as "newspeak" through her invocation of Orwell’s famous 1984 The Party slogans. 20

She then goes on the attack, accusing her critics of subjecting her to "threats of murder, rape and violence."21 While any threats are unacceptable, Rowling provides no evidence for these claims. In contrast, studies consistently show that it is trans people who face staggering levels of violence and harassment. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that 46% of respondents had been verbally harassed in the past year for being transgender, while 9% were physically attacked.22

By positioning herself as the real victim facing persecution from a "movement that relies on threats of violence, ostracisation and guilt-by-association," 23 Rowling reverses victim and offender. She denies the harm perpetuated by her own rhetoric while attacking the trans community writ large as threatening and unreasonable. This is classic DARVO - a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to avoid accountability by turning the tables.

Rowling's selective presentation of events warrants scrutiny. Her digital footprint shows liked tweets criticizing the transgender movement as early as 2017, three years before her first public anti-trans statements in June 2020.24 This timeline reveals a pattern of escalating engagement, rather than mere defensive behavior.

While Rowling has indeed faced harassment, which should be unequivocally condemned, she presents these incidents as representative of the entire trans rights movement.25 This selective focus ignores both the legitimate criticism she's received and the broader context of her own actions that have contributed to real harm against the trans community.26

The Chamber of Prejudice: Myths, Misconceptions Hypocrisy and False Equivalencies

Rowling accuses her opponents of "rewriting history" and lists the "crimes" they've allegedly been "targeted" for, such as "doubting the evidential basis for transitioning children." But a closer look reveals that it is Rowling herself who is engaging in historical revisionism.

Her framing of healthcare for transgender youth as reckless experimentation is incredibly misleading. Major medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society support gender-affirming care as evidence-based treatment that dramatically improves mental health outcomes.2728 Puberty blockers, for example, have been used for decades to safely delay puberty in children with precocious puberty.29

When Rowling states she's been targeted "for crimes such as doubting the evidential basis for transitioning children," she collapses complex medical, social, and ethical debates into simplified, emotionally charged statements. Her actual record shows consistent opposition to gender recognition reform, extending far beyond mere "doubting" and well into anti-trans advocacy.30

By mischaracterizing this care as ideological rather than medical, Rowling appeals to fear and tradition to undermine the legitimacy of trans identities. She invokes a slippery slope fallacy, suggesting that providing affirming care to trans youth will lead to regrettable outcomes. But the research clearly shows that denying trans youth support poses far greater risks.31

Rowling's Selective Condemnation of Guilt by Association

In her statement, Rowling decries being "smeared and defamed" through "guilt-by-association" for questioning "gender ideology." Yet in the same breath, she engages in guilt by association herself, painting trans activists as a shadowy, violent movement based on anecdotal claims.32

Rowling refers to "a trans woman post[ing] my family's home address with a bomb-making guide" and her daughter being "targeted by a prominent trans activist." She provides no evidence for these allegations, but uses them to tar the entire trans community as threatening. This is a hasty generalization fallacy, attributing the claimed actions of individuals to a whole marginalized group.33

Despite documented incidents of harassment, which should be unequivocally condemned, Rowling consistently presents these as representative of the entire trans rights movement.⁶ This selective amplification serves to paint all trans activism as inherently violent, dismiss legitimate criticism as "threats," and position any opposition as dangerous extremism. Her own words betray her true views. She has repeatedly framed trans women as predatory men invading women's spaces:

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.” 34

This quote exemplifies how Rowling promotes the transphobic myth that trans women are threats to cis women through an implied threat - not directly. Reminiscent of “having concerns” or “just asking questions”. She dismisses legitimate criticism of her anti-trans rhetoric as harassment in order to paint herself as a silenced truth-teller and victim:

“But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.”35

Rather than acknowledge the marginalization trans people face, Rowling claims trans activism itself is an attack on women and feminism:

“We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced…Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now.”36

The hypocrisy is stark - Rowling condemns associating her with anti-trans prejudice while herself promoting guilt by association about trans people. It's a double standard used to demonize an already vulnerable population.

The Order of False Equivalence: Criticism vs. Oppression

Perhaps the most telling and frustrating aspect of Rowling's DARVO strategy is the false equivalence it creates between facing criticism and facing oppression. She equates being challenged on her views with being victimized and silenced.

Rowling consistently conflates legitimate criticism with threats of violence, policy disagreements with "barbaric" actions, and academic debate about gender-affirming care with "targeting children."37 This strategic shifting allows her to retreat to seemingly reasonable positions when challenged while advancing more extreme views when unchallenged.

But there is a fundamental difference between having harmful rhetoric called out and being systemically marginalized. As a wealthy, famous author, Rowling still has an enormous platform to spread her opinions. Receiving push-back is not the same as being censored.

In contrast, transgender people face staggering levels of discrimination in housing, healthcare, employment and public accommodations. They are disproportionately impacted by poverty, homelessness and violence. Fighting for basic rights and dignity in the face of pervasive prejudice is not a "confrontational approach" - it is a struggle to survive.38

By conflating criticism with persecution, Rowling's DARVO framework obscures the power dynamics at play. It positions someone with immense privilege and influence as the victim, while further stigmatizing a group fighting for their fundamental humanity. This false equivalence is a dangerous distortion that must be challenged.

The irony is striking: in responding to an article about reconsidering confrontational approaches, Rowling chose to exemplify exactly why such reconsideration is necessary. Her response serves as a master class in DARVO techniques, demonstrating why careful analysis of such rhetoric is crucial for maintaining honest discourse about complex social issues.

Rowling’s TERF Talking Points and Dog Whistles

Throughout her lengthy tweet, J.K. Rowling employs rhetoric straight out of the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) playbook. Central to this is the boogeyman of "gender ideology" - a term used to dismiss transgender identities as a belief system rather than a reality39. By framing the push for transgender rights as an "insanity run amok" and a "barbaric" attack on women and girls, Rowling reinforces the notion that trans equality is an extremist ideology rather than a matter of human rights.40

This language is far from neutral. Terms like "insanity" and "barbaric" are loaded with fear-mongering subtext, painting trans people as a threat to society. The phrase "gender ideology" itself is a dog whistle, evoking anti-trans tropes of indoctrination and the subversion of traditional values. Rowling's framing of trans rights as an attack on women relies on an appeal to fear fallacy, suggesting that inclusion will inevitably lead to harm.

Underlying all of this is the persistent implication that transgender identities are not real or valid - that they are merely a "belief" to be "questioned" or an "ideology" to be opposed. This language denies the lived realities of trans people, dismissing their experiences as a debatable academic concept rather than an integral part of their identity.

The Deathly Myths: Fearmongering and Promoting Misconceptions

Rowling's rhetoric also leans heavily into classic anti-transgender myths and stereotypes. Perhaps most pervasive is the "bathroom predator" myth - the thoroughly debunked notion that allowing transgender people to use the restroom aligned with their gender identity will lead to an increase in sexual assaults.

Extensive studies have found no evidence that non-discrimination policies lead to bathroom attacks. A 2018 study examined restroom crime reports in Massachusetts cities with and without inclusive policies and found no increase in assaults.41 In fact, research indicates it is transgender people who face high levels of harassment and violence in restrooms when forced to use facilities inconsistent with their identity.42

Similarly, the idea that transgender athletes have an inherent and unfair advantage in sports is not supported by scientific evidence. Trans athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 200443, but in the 20 years since, no transgender athlete has even qualified, let alone dominated their sport.44 Rowling and others cherry-pick rare examples of trans women succeeding in athletics to paint them as a threat to cis women's sports, ignoring the much more significant barriers trans athletes face in even being able to compete as themselves.

These myths fuel real-world discrimination and hostility against transgender people. The "bathroom predator" narrative has been used to justify invasive "genital check" laws and bans on trans people using the correct facilities. Exaggerated concerns over trans athletes have led to a wave of exclusionary sports bans, despite a lack of evidence of any problem. The fallacies employed, from cherry-picked anecdotes to slippery slope arguments, obscure the reality: trans people face immense hurdles and marginalization, not unfair advantages.

The Vanishing Identities: Dismissing Trans Experiences

Perhaps most harmful is the way Rowling's language dismisses and invalidates transgender identities. Her statement refers to "any man who says 'I'm a woman'" and the "crime" of "stating that biological sex exists." This framing portrays being transgender as a mere claim or belief, rather than a deeply felt identity and biological reality.45

Being transgender is not a choice or an ideology - it is a core identity that has existed throughout human history and across cultures. Major medical organizations like the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association affirm that being transgender is a "normal variation of human identity and expression," not a mental illness or delusion.

By dismissing trans identities as something "any man" can simply declare, Rowling appeals to ridicule and personal incredulity fallacies. She positions trans women as men playing pretend, rather than women who have always been women, regardless of their assigned sex at birth. This invalidation has severe real-world consequences, fueling a culture of skepticism and hostility toward trans people's self-declared identities.

When those in positions of power and influence use rhetoric that dismisses trans identities, it becomes easier for others to do the same. Misgendering and refusing to acknowledge a trans person's identity is a form of harassment and abuse, one that trans people face daily with devastating impacts on mental health. Language like Rowling's reinforces the idea that it is acceptable to question and invalidate trans identities, rather than respecting them as real and valid.

Rowling may couch her arguments in the language of concern for women and girls, but the result is a perpetuation of dangerous anti-trans narratives. By examining the rhetoric she employs, from loaded terminology to fear-mongering fallacies, we can see how her words contribute to a climate of hostility and discrimination against an already marginalized community. To truly support transgender rights, we must challenge these harmful myths and affirm the reality of trans identities.

The Impact of Rowling's Influence

The Cursed Legacy: How Rowling Shapes Public Attitudes and Emboldens Hate

As one of the most famous authors in the world, J.K. Rowling wields immense cultural influence. Her words have outsized power to shape public attitudes - and unfortunately, she has increasingly used that power to spread anti-transgender narratives.

Rowling's latest statement, slamming a New York Times article that gently critiqued her views as "insulting," exemplifies how she wields her platform as a blunt instrument in the debate over trans rights.46 By painting herself as a victim facing threats for "crimes" like "doubting the evidential basis for transitioning children," Rowling feeds the misconception that trans activists are an unreasonable, even violent force bullying anyone who questions them.

In reality, it is transgender people who face epidemic levels of harassment, discrimination and violence for simply existing. A staggering 46% of transgender youth seriously considered suicide in the past year, while nearly half (49%) of LGBTQ+ young people experienced bullying in the past year. Of those who did, they reported significantly higher rates attempting suicide in the past year than those who did not experience bullying. Finally, the overwhelming majority (90%) of LGBTQ+ young people said their well-being was negatively impacted due to recent politics. Over half (53%) said their well-being was negatively impacted by politics significantly.47 Rowling's words matter because they contribute to a climate where anti-trans hostility is normalized and validated.

We can see the tangible impact in the wave of anti-transgender legislation sweeping the U.S. and U.K. Republican lawmakers have introduced hundreds of bills targeting transgender rights, often using the same fear-mongering rhetoric about protecting women and children that Rowling employs. These legislative efforts increase the risk of suicide by trans youth by up to 72%.48 Policies like sports bans and restrictions on gender-affirming healthcare have been justified by appealing to the exact myths of unfair advantage and child indoctrination that Rowling amplifies to her 14 million Twitter followers.

The Responsibility of the Elder Wand: Celebrity Platforms and Their Power

With such a massive platform comes profound responsibility. Rowling is not merely another voice in the debate - she is a cultural juggernaut whose every word is dissected and amplified in mainstream discourse. Her choice to wield that influence spreading inflammatory misinformation about a marginalized minority matters.

It matters because transgender people are not an abstract talking point - they are human beings fighting for their basic dignity and survival. It matters because when someone with Rowling's reach and reputation mainstreams anti-trans narratives, it makes discrimination and dehumanization seem more acceptable to the average person.

Rowling may believe she is simply asking questions or expressing concerns, though in Rowling’s case I do not extend the benefit of the doubt. But to a trans child already facing hostility and rejection from those around them, hearing that one of their beloved childhood authors thinks people like them are dangerous or deluded is devastating. To a policymaker looking to score points by targeting a vulnerable population, Rowling's words provide ammunition and legitimacy.

With power comes accountability. Rowling does not have to agree with or even fully understand the transgender experience. But she has a responsibility to consider the real-world impact of using her platform to punch down at an already marginalized group - an act she rejects that she is doing:

Spreading misinformation, mocking trans identities, and impugning the motives of trans advocates is not a good faith contribution to complex conversations. We know hateful rhetoric connects to, and emboldens, real-world violence. To ignore this is to behave with reckless cruelty with tangible, real-life consequences.49

The Marauder's Map to Allyship: Empathy, Understanding, and Uplifting Trans Voices

Amidst all the heated rhetoric and political gamesmanship, it is crucial to remember the humanity at the heart of this debate. Transgender people are not a threat or a punchline - they are individuals seeking to live authentically in a world that often greets them with scorn and violence.

The core request of the trans community is astonishingly simple: to be seen, respected and protected as the people they know themselves to be. Not as predators or punchlines, not as deluded or damaged, but as fully realized human beings deserving of dignity and equality under the law.

To get there, we need more empathy, more understanding, more commitment to uplift trans voices and center trans experiences. We need to recognize, as one advocate put it, that for trans people the question isn't academic - it's "How am I going to survive the next four years under Trump?" ⁵

Allyship means challenging the myths and prejudice that make that survival a daily struggle. It means calling out rhetoric that dehumanizes trans people, even and especially when it comes from beloved figures like J.K. Rowling. It means making space for trans people to tell their own stories, rather than having their lives dissected and debated by those with no lived experience of their reality.

This is a time for moral clarity and courage. The campaign against transgender rights is not a game or a thought experiment - it is an attack on the fundamental humanity of a vulnerable minority. History will judge how those with power and privilege chose to respond. Let us hope empathy and equality win out over fear and prejudice.

Choosing Truth, Justice, and Equality

In her latest statement, J.K. Rowling once again demonstrates that she is far more interested in perpetuating dangerous anti-transgender myths than engaging honestly with the reality of trans lives. By writing herself as a victim facing persecution simply for "questioning" the validity of trans identities, Rowling taps into a larger ecosystem of skewed media coverage that frames any trans advocacy as inherently unreasonable and threatening.

Rowling's aggressive response to a New York Times article that largely defended her, slamming it as "insulting" while claiming to face threats of murder and sexual violence from trans activists, exemplifies the contradictions at the heart of her rhetoric. As far as I can tell, she did so seemingly because it did not make her out to be enough of a victim. She positions herself as a brave truth-teller, yet consistently spreads inflammatory misinformation about marginalized people fighting for their basic humanity. She decries being "smeared and defamed" for her views, yet casually engages in mocking caricatures of trans identities and false accusations of predatory behavior.

The reality, as the NYT article inadvertently reveals, is that Rowling and her allies are not good-faith actors simply expressing "concerns" or calling for "debate." They are actively stoking a moral panic against a vulnerable minority, then crying foul when faced with the mildest push-back or critique. This manipulative tactic, painting those with power as helpless victims of the oppressed people they demonize, is a classic tool of prejudice - and media coverage that uncritically echoes it is complicit.

If we are to have any hope of a society where trans people can simply exist in safety and dignity, we must relentlessly challenge these narratives wherever they appear. That means continuing to fact-check and debunk the junk science, historical revisionism and baseless fearmongering that figures like Rowling use to cloak anti-trans animus in the language of reasonable disagreement.

It means centering trans voices and experiences, allowing them to speak for themselves rather than be caricatured and condemned by those with no real knowledge of their lives. It means holding accountable those with massive platforms who punch down at one of the most marginalized groups in our society. And it means calling out media coverage that uncritically launders anti-trans talking points, or frames the debate as between two equally valid sides rather than between oppressor and oppressed. We should be punching up to those kicking us down!

1. Always punch up against those in power.
2. Never kick down at those who lack it.
3. Aim your blows at the mighty, not the marginalized.

Rowling likes to portray herself as a feminist advocate, but true feminism recognizes the indivisibility of liberation. Trans women are women, and any movement that claims to fight for the rights of women and girls while throwing trans people under the bus is a hollow mockery of solidarity.

As feminist scholar Sally Hines notes, "Anti-trans feminism is not feminism at all. It is misogyny dressed up as pseudo-science, and its goal is to control, police and ultimately exclude women: cis and trans alike."50 True feminism fights for the liberation of all women, rejecting all patriarchal gender norms, not just those who conform to narrow notions of womanhood, including those that say only cisgender women are "real" women.

The humanity of transgender people is not up for debate, and no one should be able to spread malicious lies about them without consequence - no matter how famous they are. We should not comply no matter how powerful they are. Recent sit-ins should be just the beginning. If you see a trans women in the restroom, no you didn’t. If someone makes some noise about it, or a cop does, then we all are trans women in that moment.51

As a parting thought, I will quote Nick Hilton’s incisive and revealing thoughts on Rowling and what her work reveals52:

“It is a disillusionment that Rowling shares, but for all her books’ world-weary criticism of a political world polarised by social media, they show little self-awareness. In her novels, Rowling skewers the far right – meanwhile, she has liked a post from a far-right account on Twitter. She condemns vicious keyboard warriors and hysterical reactionaries in her books but engages in similar behaviour herself online. In another world, JK Rowling could be a character in a book by Robert Galbraith: brittle, insecure, cruel.”53