The Eck’s Factor: Amy Coney Barrett and J.K. Rowling perpetuate prejudice through tokenization
By this point, I’m sure we have all at least heard of J.K. Rowling’s “TERF Wars.” Some of us wish to forget them while others simply cannot get past them and Rowling refuses to capitulate.
They escalated earlier this summer, when Rowling tweeted, “I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives.”
Months later, she announced her upcoming novel “Troubled Blood” under her alias Robert Galbraith. Many critics have criticized its plot for being essentially transphobic, as it follows a man who cross-dresses to murder women.
To say the least, it’s idiosyncratic how Rowling has called herself “empathetic to trans people.” This paradox opens the conversation beyond blatant transphobia to tokenization. Having trans friends does not immunize one from transphobia, just as being associated with any marginalized community does not effectively translate to a “free pass” to mistreating said community.
Let’s make one thing clear: Calling Rowling a “bitch” is misogynistic, but the phrase “TERF,” or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, is not. It reflects her opinion that a woman is not a woman unless they menstruate. It reflects her upcoming novel that portrays trans people as violent and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that trans people are pedophiles who weaponize their identities to harass cisgender women in public restrooms, neither of which have anything to do with Rowling’s gender identity.
Moreover, this “I have trans friends” mantra is ever so common — “I have Black friends, so that means I cannot be racist” is a classic line boasted by white people who get defensive in conversations surrounding race. The truth is, though, being acquainted with a marginalized community does not exempt one from oppressive behaviors. Plus, assuming that it does serves as the cornerstone of tokenization or the use of a member of an underrepresented group to project allyship.
For instance, following the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, many Republicans have justified her as a candidate that Democrats cannot possibly scrutinize. I saw one tweet in particular: “Well, I guess labeling Amy Coney Barrett a racist and rapist is out.” Ironically, it captions a photo of her sister — not the Supreme Court nominee herself — with Barrett’s adopted children from Haiti.
This view epitomizes tokenization — she may have Black children, but this does not negate her support for a racist president, and it does not offset her upholding policies that harm marginalized communities. For example, her record shows hostility against the Affordable Care Act and Title IX on college campuses.
As prompted by Ibram X. Kendi, the author of “How to be an Antiracist,” “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.” He finishes his Twitter thread by positing, “And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.”
Kendi received criticism for the comments, but he perfectly explains the “I have Black kids” rhetoric. Assimilation of people from “shithole countries” is a Eurocentric, white supremacy ideal that suggests non-white people need to change themselves to be more civilized. Whatever her intentions were, Barrett can adopt Black kids and still perpetuate this racist ideology.
Additionally, being a part of a marginalized community does not excuse one from being oppressive against that community. Barrett is an anti-feminist woman — she is affiliated with a conservative Christian group called People of Praise, where women covenant to submit to their husband’s will. She is anti-abortion and has ruled against Title IX policies that protect sexual assault victims, citing their “anti-male sex bias.” Just as Black police officers can participate in an oppressive institution that perpetuates violence against Black people, women can participate in a misogynistic system that oppresses other women.
Nonetheless, this brings us back to Rowling — she may insist that she finds kinship with the trans community, yet her behavior instigates violence against trans people, who experience higher rates of harassment and violence compared to the general population. It is inherently ignorant and counterproductive to claim allyship based on your network instead of your actions, thoughts and behaviors.
Ultimately, this faux belief completely undermines the complexity of biases by shielding them through superficial means. Tokenization does not remedy prejudices, whether it’s through trans friends or adopted Black children. Rowling and Barrett exemplify corrosive mindsets that we mustn’t follow and, more importantly, must continue to challenge.
In the grand scheme of things, this has always been a war beyond TERFs. However, we are not fighting until the other side capitulates. We are fighting for progress.
Matthew Eck is a junior writing about culturally relevant social issues. His column, “The Eck’s Factor,” runs every other Wednesday.