The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling
It’s important to understand exactly what Megan Phelps-Roper thinks her podcast is. Why did she make it? What does she think she’s accomplishing? What ills of society is she healing, and how?
J.K. Rowling has been an absolute force in the culture for more than two decades at this point. And the world has changed a lot during that time. And so in Witch Trials, we kind of use her story as a way of exploring those changes. We investigate the similarities and the differences between these two vocal backlashes that she’s faced. First, from the Christian right, as you mentioned, who said she was promoting witchcraft and disobedience to authority. And then also now from the left who accuse her of transphobia. And it’s not a story about shaming or blaming people for being angry at her or for vehemently disagreeing with her and condemning her. And it’s also not about trying to prove that she’s right. It’s really about trying to understand where people on all sides of this conflict are coming from in a scrupulously good faith way.
Megan Phelps-Roper speaking to Bari Weiss on Twitter Spaces
All sides. Scrupulously good faith. Remember that.
It’s worth noting that Megan repeats this exact paragraph, nearly word for word, on Sam Harris’s podcast. I can only wonder why she would have something like this memorized; if it’s just because she’s not comfortable speaking on the fly or if The Free Press trained her on how to answer questions.
The origins
I’m fascinated when trying to imagine just how this podcast came to be. Megan and her publisher Bari Weiss’s story is that Megan wrote J.K. Rowling a letter in 2022, and was shocked that Rowling responded.
J.K. Rowling: very famous woman, but does not give a lot of interviews. Megan, for some reason, she agreed not to sit down with The New York Times or The Washington Post or any of the other legacy outlets. She decided to sit down with you for what ended up being more than 9 hours over the course of several days at her home castle in Scotland. And I don’t think she’s ever done that before. And you write in this essay introducing the series that it was all because of a letter you wrote. And so I think people are probably wondering what the hell was in that letter.
Bari Weiss speaking to Megan Phelps-Roper on Twitter Spaces
First of all, Megan frames it as a letter telling Rowling about her time in Westboro and asking her to have an open conversation about her views. Theoretically, it could have included that, but it obviously also included a request to be interviewed for a podcast. (We never get to read the letter.) Megan herself admits in her interview with Weiss that “it is such a long shot,” and “the likelihood that she says yes to this is so minimal that if she says yes, maybe that’s a sign of some kind.”
But was it a long shot? Considering that Weiss and Rowling co-signed a letter in 2020, and that they already had mutual friends like Maya Forstater and Julie Bindel, both of whom Rowling had brunch with in early 2022, I highly, highly doubt that Megan decided on her own to send Rowling a letter out of the blue last year. I am almost positive that Weiss approached Megan and Rowling with the idea for the podcast.
The title
Only moments after I saw Megan’s announcement of the podcast, I saw her predictably defending the title which paints an undeniable picture.
The title is ambiguous. Toward the end of our conversations, I spent a long time talking with @jk_rowling about discernment. About how a person can ever know if they’re standing up for what’s right—or joining a moral panic. I think you’ll be surprised by the thoughts she shares. https://t.co/X1QO77FVA8
— Megan Phelps-Roper (@meganphelps) February 14, 2023
At the end of March, Megan was still trying to sell the title as “deep,” “interesting,” and “about human nature.” She says she references one reason for the title in episode 1. That reference is:
After I left Rowling’s home, I spoke to reporters and historians. Transgender adults, teens and advocates, doctors and lawyers, and many of Rowling’s critics, including some who supported book bans. And one of the things that stood out to me was how people on all sides of this conflict felt so under attack, so threatened that they invoked the language of witch hunts, even as they vehemently disagreed on who was the witch and who was the mob lighting the fire.
Megan Phelps-Roper, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, Episode 1: Plotted in Darkness
She went into more detail about this “ambiguous” title in the Twitter Spaces interview:
People on all sides of this conflict invoke the language of witch hunts. And they see themselves as the object of a moral panic. […] Ultimately, we realized the title was actually far more ambiguous than it seems at first glance. So obviously there are people who see Rowling as the subject of a witch hunt, so she is prosecuting a witch hunt, and other people who think that she is the object of one, that she’s the target of one. It is an investigation. People look at that and they read it in one way without acknowledging or realizing that it could be read a different way. And I don’t blame them. It makes perfect sense that people might misread or misunderstand, but it is a very well thought out title.
Megan Phelps-Roper speaking to Bari Weiss on Twitter Spaces
Well thought out indeed.
When you title something called “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling,” you have already set up a narrative in which Rowling is the persecuted figure.
Watch out for that narrative. Be vigilant. Because Rowling needs to be questioned, rigorously. She’s a talented enough writer to know exactly what she’s saying and exactly how it’s landing. She’s a talented enough writer to know exactly how to thread needle after needle, so her supporters can claim there’s nothing to see there and her critics get exhausted.
Monica Hesse, Listening to ‘The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling’ is exhausting work
The Free Press and Bari Weiss
I had never heard of The Free Press before, but I did not trust it after reading Megan’s article about Rowling being “canceled,” with her air of wonder about why that could have possibly happened. And crucially, the concept of “freedom of speech” has been co-opted by the right to essentially mean “freedom to harass people and spread harmful misinformation without consequences.” So no, my hopes were not high for The Free Press.
Well, The Free Press is owned by Bari Weiss, who is best known for leaving The New York Times because they were “ideologically unaligned.” Her resignation letter doesn’t give many specifics of what happened, but it hints that The New York Times was simply not conservative—or centrist—enough for her and the writers she platformed like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jesse Singal. Mind you, this was before The New York Times—or Weiss—openly supported Rowling’s transphobia… largely to promote the Witch Trials podcast!
(Interestingly, the podcast is also sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. While “freedom of expression” is a common dogwhistle, and FIRE has enjoyed donations from places like the Charles Koch Institute, they’ve also done good things like challenging Florida’s recent “Stop WOKE” Act.)
But Weiss’s anti-trans views are extensive. According to Transgender Map, Weiss “is an American opinion writer and a key figure in promoting and platforming gender-critical and anti-transgender views.”
While at the New York Times, Weiss popularized the intellectual dark web, described as a gateway to the far right. She has platformed, appeared with, promoted, and logrolled for other activists in the gender critical movement, including J.K. Rowling, Alice Dreger, Jesse Singal, Katie Herzog, Abigail Shrier, Ana Valens, Sue Evans, Suzy Weiss, Julie Bindel, Carole Hooven, Maud Maron, Andrew Sullivan, Lisa Selin Davis, and Helen Lewis.
Transgender Map: Bari Weiss vs. transgender people
Weiss also sits on the board of trustees for the still-seeking-accreditation University of Austin Texas, which holds summer courses on Old Parkland Campus in Dallas, which is owned by Crow Holdings, the real estate business of Harlan Crow, Clarence Thomas’s recently-discovered Nazi artifact-loving benefactor. The school, where a Black Lives Matter protestor had the privilege of debating a Trump campaign worker, also boasts faculty and advisors such as Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Kathleen Stock.
A look into The Free Press’s transphobia
Browsing The Free Press, I found an article by someone named Jamie Reed called I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle. Reed wrote that she believes that the clinic where she worked as a case manager, the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, didn’t screen young people enough before carelessly prescribing them hormone replacement therapy.
Three weeks later, a local St. Louis paper reported on what really goes on inside the clinic with detailed but anonymous stories from several patients’ parents which directly contradict Reed’s claims.
Rather than the “rapid medicalization” and “poor assessment of mental health concerns” that Reed cited in a complaint sent to Bailey in January, parents reported a well-defined, step-by-step approach that could be halted at any time.
Slow, methodical adjustments began at home, long before medications were used: testing out new names, using different pronouns, cutting hair short or growing it long. The social transitions ran concurrently with mental health care, sometimes lasting years. Only then, parents said, was medication considered.
Parents push back on allegations against St. Louis transgender center. ‘I’m baffled.’
What’s more, a parent on Twitter explained that she and her young trans child could not even obtain the information (not medication) they needed because Reed lied and said the center didn’t provide those services. And more recently, yet another writer at The Free Press, Emily Yoffe, published an article featuring a concerned mother about her transfemme child’s treatment at the same center. Hours after it was published, Alex—the teen in question—revealed that the article was rife with lies, and that she hadn’t given her mother permission to share the medical information that she did.
The patience to find transphobia
It’s safe to say that The Free Press is an anti-trans publication with a record of distorting and excluding information that doesn’t fit their harmful narrative. This is why I first wondered if Megan Phelps-Roper approached them or if they approached her, seeing her passion for “good-faith conversation” as a perfect vehicle for the biggest story about one of the internet’s biggest names all year. With Megan, they can shield accusations of platforming a transphobic bigot with claims that they’re just “bridging divides,” questioning what they see as authoritarian, and being unbiased.
It is none of those things. The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling is a transphobic podcast. But to anyone who calls it that on Twitter, Megan will always say, “Just listen to the podcast.” “We’ll get to that in episode x.” “If only people would listen to the whole thing.”
Well, I did listen. Every week. But listening is half of the battle. Maybe you’ve listened to Witch Trials and thought it was even-handed. But as Monica Hesse wrote for the Washington Post, “Things are said that sound reasonable. You would only know they were unreasonable — they were, in fact, wrong — if you had the patience to fact-check, or if you had the personal experience of counterevidence.” Or maybe… if you had this blog post.
You keep using the word “equivocating”, I do not think it means what you think it means. What I think you mean is “equate”.
Oh my gosh!!! Thanks for telling me. Well they definitely equivocate too! 😅
Yes they do 🙂
It seems like your review of the podcast is mainly about Barry Weiss’s connections to problematic people. I can see why that might lead you to dismiss the podcast as a waste of time, but you say you listened to the whole thing. I’m curious what you found a chance phobic exactly about the podcast itself?
Hi, please see pages 2-9
Hi Rebekah,
Thanks for this post. It led me to actually listen to the podcast and move beyond the limited perspective I had received from the Sam Harris’ interview with Megan. It also led me to listen to the Contrapoints response, which was very helpful. I recognize the significant effort that goes into putting together a lengthy post like this. It was clearly a labor of love and you offer many good observations on how the podcast does not live up to the fair-handed intentions espoused by Megan. That said, some aspects of the post caught my attention for less noble reasons, so I want to offer what I hope is received as friendly, constructive criticism. I really don’t want to misrepresent you in any way, so if I have misunderstood something then please let me know.
To start, I want to note that your many valid points are more likely to be summarily dismissed by readers who think that you are acting in bad faith – which I assume you don’t want. Your passion comes through loud and clear, but it appears to come with a serving of hyperbole and speculation which can be easily interpreted as a less severe version of the bad faith activism that the podcast is critiquing. To clarify what I’m referring to, some examples that caught my attention are:
1. On the first page, you (drawing from Caelan) accuse Megan of selfishly using people as mere plot devices in her story, then go on to impugn her knowledge of how to counter bad ideas and equate it to what the rest of us figure out in kindergarten (more on this below – she may know more about this than you think).
2. For Episode 1, you speculate that Megan was coached by the Free Press on what to say and then question her honesty about the “highly, highly” doubtful origins of the letter for which you’re “almost positive” you know the origins. The dot joining which you use to reach that speculation is reminiscent of conspiratorial thinking.
3. For Episode 4, you reinterpret Rowling’s statement that biological women “require certain protections” into an assertion that trans women don’t need protections (I believe she acknowledged this need at some point), and interpret the discussion of Karen White instead of cis men’s crimes as evidence that “they’re not concerned about women’s safety” (rather than just the consequence of focused discussion), and take Goldberg citing the need for clear delineations as evidence that she “doesn’t care” “that trans people are fighting for their lives”. These do not read as fair and accurate interpretations. Beyond that, the listing of advertisers in this episode is, whether you intended it or not, going to be interpreted as an endorsement of “cancel culture” by virtue of being read as a suggestion to boycott them.
4. On the last page you claim that they (presumably Megan and Rowling) prefer a world in which “trans people stay at the bottom if they are there at all“. Regardless of your intention, this reads as if you think they might actually want to eliminate trans people altogether.
Again, you’ve made a lot of good points in this post, but I raise these observations because I assume you want those points to be received without being seen as misrepresenting people and acting in bad faith. Which leads me to my second critique…
I may very well be wrong, but it also felt to me like you were not only criticizing Megan’s approach in the context of the podcast, but were also leaning toward skepticism of the open dialogue strategy in the context of social justice issues in general. I infer this from the observations above, in the quotes you select from Caelan, and in your handling of Megan’s response to Natalie’s “indirect bigotry”. Though Natalie’s video shows how antagonistic activism isn’t anything new (contrary to many claims), the mere presence of that behavior in past successful movements does not infer that it was necessary for their success.
More practically, there has been a fair bit of work to study persuasion, in both the individual and larger social contexts. If you are not already familiar with David McRaney and his “You are not so smart” podcast, I recommend taking a look. If you want your activism to be effective then I suggest that he is a voice worth listening to. In case you haven’t already guessed it, the most effective strategies have a lot in common with Megan’s idealism and stand in opposition to more antagonistic methods. While it is important for a movement to grab the public’s attention, not all attention is good for the success of the movement.
Lastly, though I have no stake in being a Megan Phelps-Roper apologist I thought it would be interesting to try and steelman her approach with this podcast:
1. If she is in fact aware of the research noted above (as I would guess) then the grace she extends to the gender critical viewpoint can also be seen as her engaging in the kind of dialogue which is necessary to gain the trust of those who hold that perspective, which makes them more open to the alternative viewpoints that are shared.
2. While the series title does lend itself more to the implication that Rowling is the witch than the witch hunter, let’s not forget that (a) Rowling’s fame is based on witchcraft, (b) Megan’s background was deep in the anti-witchcraft era of Harry Potter, (c) witch trials are classic examples of mob justice, which is a prominent theme of the series, and (d) a catchy title is important to downloads. She has said the title was intended to be open to interpretation, including directly stating this in the first episode. In the absence of unambiguous indications to the contrary, we should not assume that is a lie.
3. As far as I know, Megan doesn’t have any kind of history that puts her in the same camp as Rowling on gender issues. Guilt-by-association is a precarious criteria for pigeonholing somebody, especially when the association is in a context where she explicitly tells us that she is trying to not take a side. Even if you think she failed in that goal, your perspective on that is not a reliable insight into her intentions.
4. Megan’s history of being heavily focused on the promotion of open, civilized conversation regardless of ideological differences is good reason to believe her when she says that her goal in this case is no different, even if the end result does not appear to be as balanced as she thinks it was. As noted previously, to say that she is the “epitome of bad faith” is mind-reading her intentions.
5. Rowling is the centerpiece of the project and its success is likely dependent on Rowling’s approval. If she pulled her support, it may not have ever been released. That’s a tough line to walk and will inevitably bias the result in favor of not alienating her.
6. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read you as saying that Megan’s past has given her a “dangerous lens” because it causes her to mistake the expressions of pain and hurt in the more aggressive interactions as equivalent to the expression of hateful dogma from her time at Westboro. The distinction between emotional responses and hateful dogma is fair, but it also does not mean that there is no dogmatic rhetoric to be found on the trans-activist side. I think Natalie did a good job of acknowledging this, and we shouldn’t assume that Megan is also not aware of this distinction even if it was not overtly addressed in the podcast (though perhaps it was and I just don’t recall).
7. While episode 7 does not feature Megan confronting Rowling with vigor, the questioning of Rowling was such that – in my opinion – Rowling was cast in a far less flattering light than she was in the first 5 episodes. If that’s a legitimate observation then that is a telling way to end the series.
Sorry for the length of this comment. I hope you can appreciate that I’m not trying to be adversarial and why I would think it was worth sharing these observations.
Hi Travis, thanks for your comment and for waiting for my reply! I’ll do my best to address your points below.
(Next numbered list!)
First time reader here, and I think Travis R made an excellent point about:
“To ostart, I want to note that your many valid points are more likely to be summarily dismissed by readers who think that you are acting in bad faith – which I assume you don’t want. Your passion comes through loud and clear, but it appears to come with a serving of hyperbole and speculation which can be easily interpreted as a less severe version of the bad faith activism that the podcast is critiquing.”
What kind of blog is this? I found it on a top list of best skeptics blogs, but it reads more like bad faith activism to me. What I’ve read so far isn’t true skepticism, which makes me worried, because bad faith activism is dangerous to me and my feelings, in fact it is hate speech towards my feelings. I would like you to stop it if you would please.
I left a comment here a few days ago that included a couple links and so was held for moderation. Wanted to alert you in case it slipped your attention.
WordPress had flagged it, so I didn’t see it. Thank you for taking the time to write it! I look forward to reading it when I have a little time 🙂
Rebekah,
Thank you for responding even after all this time. I honestly never intended to spur any kind of debate with those numbered points. The first list was just an attempt to backup the claim that you were sometimes characterizing people with uncharitable attributions that go beyond the information we have, and which can therefore appear to be the kind of “bad faith” engagement that the podcast was in part critiquing. The second list was an attempt to show an example of how one could offer a more charitable interpretation of Megan’s position.
Regardless, I want to highlight the part of the comment that was between those lists. If I could have a redo, I would drop the lists because those clearly were not helpful. I should take my own advice. The larger goal was to encourage you to become familiar with the research around persuasion and how people’s minds change because I sensed you leaning into a more antagonistic approach which I understand to be counterproductive to effective activism. You are welcome to disagree with that assessment, but I thought it was worth sharing that perspective. If nothing else, I recommend looking at adding David McRaney’s most recent book to your non-fiction reading list, and\or his podcast to your rotation.
I understand you think you know a lot about this subject matter because you listened to a podcast, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that your tone is very condescending and dismissive.
It is certain that, at the very least, Phelps-Roper lacks the expertise or journalistic ability to provide a thorough portrayal of Rowling and the people who oppose her (VERY OBVIOUSLY) transmisist agenda. It is even more certain that Rowling herself hates trans people. I do not consider this language to be too strong. She is funding Posey Parker, a genocidal transmisist who is very open about her desire to force trans people to detransition, and if they won’t do that, throw them in prison. Or worse. And she is willing to throw absolutely everything else under the bus in pursuit of this goal, including women’s reproductive rights. She’s also willing to associate with a woman who started a sexual relationship with a minor (who could not consent under the law in many places) and got pregnant by that child, simply because that woman is as openly hateful of trans people as she is. Rowling is long past the “a few concerns” stage of things, and we should not allow her to pretend her motives are pure.
I think it’s important to critique ideas where important matters of justice are concerned, but to use the inflammatory words “insidious” and “transphobic” is so clearly hyperbolic that it makes you appear unserious. It gives off the aroma of click bait and performative outrage that is such a turn off to anyone not already convinced. If you are preaching to your own choir, I hope it’s gratifying.
What title would you prefer?
I recently listened to the podcast. In many ways I was disappointed with it (and pissed off by it), as well as with Megan, considering her past. While she seeks to avoid repeating the sins of her past, she wound up in the opposite extreme doing the exact same thing. I’m also working my way through the series to analyze them deeper.
I literally stopped episode 1 within about 15 seconds to investigate the sponsor. Fire (thefire.org). The first red flag for me was the free speech absolutism. This is often an indicator of an agenda-driven mission that claims high ideals, but is limited in it’s scope to just being anti-woke. I read the article on their lawsuit against CA. I picked a single quote to investigate, “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.”, and followed it down a rabbit hole. The first thing I noticed was Fire is extremely loath to link to outside sources. This tells me that seek to maintain control over the narrative, via echo chamber. The quote I picked was cut down from a much longer sentence (which is why I left the period in their quote):
“Persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial of the inequities and racial problems that exist.” (Taken from I. X. Kendi’s book “How to be Antiracist”)
Fire’s misquote means people who claims to not be a racist are denying that they are. The real quote means they’re denying the existence of inequities and racial problems. Those are two vastly different things. I don’t agree with the full sentence either, but Fire changing the context is outright lying and manipulation. (I don’t agree that saying your not a racist is denial of the problems. Racism, at it’s core, is literally the belief in the superiority of one’s race, everything else is a manifestation of that belief. One can simultaneously believe their race is not superior and know that inequality and racism exists. People who aren’t racist can also be infected with racist ideologies that permeate our society repeated ad nauseum – think “Affirmative Action is reverse racism” – and not even realize the origin or full context of these ideologies.)
One shouldn’t be surprised about the lopsided presentation of the podcast given it’s sponsorship. Megan literally sold out. It’s funny how quickly she went down the “dark web” hole. It does have a tempting message that seems shiny and logical on the surface. Until one begins to ask certain questions and doesn’t take them at face value. Smart people are very intelligent at rationalizing their irrationality.
I do believe that JKR doesn’t intend harm, but her extreme focus driven by her horrific past blinds her to the suffering of others (rather than enhancing empathy) and limits her “research” to only that which confirms her biases. Along with the huge array of logical fallacies she commits, she is incapable of understanding that the people who once vilified her didn’t become her allies, they’re using her to justify their hatred of LGBTQ people. If conservatives can separate the T from the rest (a tactic that has taken hold in recent years), then they can separate the rest and regain the ground they “lost” and usher back the pre-Stonewall era of bigotry and hatred that they enjoy so much. Many conservatives and christians don’t even realize that there are eugenicists hiding within their ranks. They play the long game and keep their messages of hatred alive. JKR doesn’t seem to even be aware how she continues to feed this insipid infection of society. I am in no way excusing JKR, ultimately, she made the choices that have hurt a lot of people and has continues to remain willfully blind to broader reality.
“The Free Press is an anti-trans publication with a record of distorting and excluding information that doesn’t fit their harmful narrative”
The amount of projection in this diatribe is something to behold. Even more ironic, considering the latest blog titled, “On Writing White” is coming from a privileged white who regurgitates white talking points in the most white way possible.
You came in with a conclusion, then perused through The Free Press looking for “evidence” to support your conclusion.
Bari Weiss didn’t leave NYT because it was “not conservative—or centrist—enough for her” — she said she left because NYT did not defend her against alleged bullying by colleagues and caving into Twitter critics. This folks, is the self-described “critical thinker” and “skeptic,” who couldn’t bother to spend a few minutes to fact-check — but that of course, wouldn’t fit her narrative. She needs to smear her opponents (how dare someone be critical of my religion?) Then she goes on ranting about FIRE because, gasp, they support free speech! You know free speech — the thing that’s part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, little Miss whitey here doesn’t like free speech or Universal Declaration of Human Rights — it hurts her narrative when people can talk back and criticize her ideology. She prefers to go back to the 19th century when fanatic whites like her were free to proselytize and force her religion on others without resistance. Ah, the good ‘ol days!
You know what is “harmful?” A “movement” where its members harass women, who regularly send death and rape threats to women, who use emotional blackmailing, who try to silence critics and get them fired. It’s not surprising that depression among girls and women has skyrocketed, and now white liberal women are the most unhappy group in the country. Congrats — this is the accomplishment of your “movement.”
The rest of the non-WHITE Western world completely rejects your gender ideology — perhaps should stop excluding this information that doesn’t fit your backward narrative.
I note that Rebekah Kohlhepp is a Middle Class, Heterosexual, CIS, White Woman. Need any more be said?
I’m proud of you for noticing