1. Introduction
[1.1] I aim to demonstrate the use of ableism in the service of transphobia. I focus on J. K. Rowling as a case study, particularly her rhetorical use of ableism to justify bigotry against both trans and disabled people. Content warnings are used disingenuously by Rowling to harm the very people who need them.
[1.2] This is demonstrated through Rowling's claims with regard to a survivor organization that she funded. According to her, the reason why the organization bars trans people from accessing its services is the wish to accommodate the needs of cisgender women who have triggers. While some have excluded mental health from discussions of disability (Morgan 2021), it is a disability, meaning that Rowling is doing this, supposedly, for disabled women. However, a careful reading of the survivor center's materials shows that it universalizes white, straight, nondisabled needs (note 1). The center has no programs or even basic accommodations in place for disabled people. In fact, it's not even wheelchair-accessible. Rather than offering care for disabled people's needs, this rhetorical practice reflects an exploitation of accessibility to promote transphobia. In this, it serves as an example of marginalized groups being set against one another as a means to get away with harming both.
2. Background
[2.1] One of the fundamental discussions in disability studies revolves around the different models of conceptualizing disability. The medical model frames disability as a flaw to be cured and centers a medical perspective, rather than a disabled one. In addition, it focuses on physical disability while erasing mental health disabilities (Morgan 2021).
[2.2] In contrast, the social model focuses on systemic issues. It views many of the issues faced by disabled people as caused by a society that centers nondisabled people and needs. This model has been rightly criticized for failure to account for intersections between disability and other marginalized experiences (Oliver 2013). Following Alison Kafer (2013), one might conclude that the social model is an imperfect yet solid basis for understanding disability and the social issues surrounding it. As Kafer also explains, different lived experiences provide a different worldview and understanding of disability, meaning that disability can be understood in a variety of intersectional ways. Therefore, following both Mike Oliver (2013) and Hannah Morgan (2021), I define disability as a medicalized physical or mental difference from hegemony.
[2.3] Ableism is commonly defined as "stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression toward people with disabilities" (Bogart and Dunn 2019, 650). Following scholars such as Anita Silvers (2009), I add that ableism also means the centering of nondisabled people and their needs, points of view, and perspectives. Importantly, as Anthony J. Maher and Justin A. Haegele (2024) explain, internalized ableism is also a serious type of ableism.
[2.4] Inaccessibility is the symptom of a society built for nondisabled people. It understands accessibility as an insufficient yet necessary right that society owes disabled people. A few examples of accessibility are level sidewalks, sign language communication, an available quiet room, and the ability to zoom in on text. Since disabled people are often queer, trans, BIPOC (black, indigenous, and people of color), women, or otherwise multiply marginalized, accessibility also includes intersectional components—for example, being referred to with the right pronouns (Baril 2015). This understanding is based in theories such as intersectionality.
[2.5] Content warnings serve as one form of accessibility (Ahmed 2015; Bodammer 2021). Different disabled people might have a need to avoid or be prepared for certain inputs (commonly known as triggers). For example, some people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from sexual trauma may need to avoid depictions of sexual violence. Exposure to such depictions may result in flashbacks, depersonalization, eating disorder episodes, and other severe symptoms. Therefore, moving toward a society that takes disabled people into account requires the use of content warnings (also called trigger warnings)—topical warnings ahead of content that might harm the disabled person (Ahmed 2015). Currently, the use of content warnings seems to be increasing: A survey among professors in the United States found that 51 percent used such warnings in their classes (Kamenetz 2016). A different survey, however, found that among professors familiar with content warnings, 44 percent had negative opinions of them (Bryce et al. 2023).
[2.6] Ableism is used to harm not only disabled people but transgender people as well. Transgender (trans) people are those whose gender identity is different from the one assigned to them at birth. Broader definitions exist, such as that of Susan Stryker et al. (2008), who define transness as moving between categories. Either way, this includes binary trans people, whose gender is woman or man, and other trans people, some identifying as nonbinary and some not (Davis 2019). Such people may have other gender identities, some based in noncolonial gender systems, or have multiple genders, no gender, or move between genders regularly (Leetal 2024).
[2.7] The TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) movement, or as some call it, the gender critical movement (Bassi and LaFleur 2022), is a prominent antitrans movement that has gained increasing cultural traction in recent years. This movement promotes antitrans panic and disinformation, as well as antitrans legislation, regulation, and policies (Billard 2023). Such groups repeatedly claim that free speech includes a right to spread antitrans hate speech (Pape 2022). However, the legal definition of free speech solely addresses government censorship, not public discourse. Regardless, TERFs utilize this argument while themselves limiting others' speech through practices such as targeted harassment and doxing (note 2) (Lu and Jurgens 2022).
3. Different approaches to different warnings
[3.1] I am a sapphic, trans, disabled survivor of rape and family abuse, and I have severe triggers. I have complex PTSD (C-PTSD), and some issues can and do cause me pain and put me in danger. To help minimize my risks in reading and socializing, some people put aside their ableism and use content warnings. They let me know when they are about to mention things that cause harm so I am able to strategize and handle my symptoms safely. Most people, however, do not.
[3.2] Personally, I have a need for warnings before mentions of medical issues. I don't need warnings before mentions of sexual violence, but of course those are important for accessibility and ethical commitment. I have found that people's reactions are often different when they are asked to provide warnings for medical issues versus warnings for sexual violence.
[3.3] There is increasingly normalized respect for warnings ahead of content relating to sexual violence. However, this improvement is often suspiciously and harmfully absent regarding other content warnings. Many people warn for sexual violence even when not asked. This stands in stark contrast to reactions to the need for content warnings for health issues. In my experience, I have found that people respond disproportionately, sometimes even aggressively. Some people mock me, intentionally try to cause a trigger, or suggest that exposure without consent would magically "cure me," in keeping with the medical model, which views disability as a problem. In my fairly liberal educational and personal environment, this response is not often the case of warnings for sexual violence.
[3.4] Warnings for sexual violence share many characteristics with warnings for health issues. Both issues can be life-changing or life-threatening, and both involve social bigotry—rape is a social issue often linked with femmephobia, while health is a social issue often linked with ableism. Talking about rape and disability may help promote social justice. Both place the person who speaks out in a vulnerable position. Yet, in my experience, responses regarding warnings for these two apparently similar topics are often very different.
[3.5] I suggest this is because in both cases, those using content warnings rarely care about the people who need them. The use of warnings is not to benefit disabled people. Sexual assault is taboo, and, therefore, asking to discuss it is traditionally not socially acceptable. Rather, content warnings for sexual violence can serve as a form of punishment for people who wish to speak about it. This is not to say warnings for sexual violence are in any way less valid and important than other warnings. It is to say that people who choose to misunderstand the notions behind content warnings may also be comfortable weaponizing them against the socially disruptive discussion of sexual violence.
[3.6] The use of warnings only for sexual violence, while disregarding others, is a form of exploitation of disabled people. This practice does not embrace the underlying motive of content warnings—to increase accessibility for all disabled people—but mobilizes a limited and inequitable version of content warnings that largely corresponds to preexisting social taboos. It harms those who need other warnings by ignoring their needs. Content warnings should absolutely be provided; however, their exploitation is an ableist practice, especially when divorced from actual care for disabled people's needs.
[3.7] I suggest that J. K. Rowling utilizes the taboo regarding sexual violence triggers and exploits disability activism to promote transphobia.
4. Rowling's transphobic background
[4.1] In 2023, J. K. Rowling likened trans people to the Nazi allegory in her books: Death Eaters—racist, entitled, murderous child abusers (Travis 2023). This has been Rowling's narrative for years (Duggan 2022). Rowling also mocked an article about menstruation safety during COVID-19 for using inclusive language (Uspenskiy 2022). Rowling has claimed that transgender women are men in dresses and that the existence of trans women is dangerous to cis women—while at the same time dismissing claims of domestic abuse against actor Johnny Depp, who appears in her movie (Duggan 2022).
[4.2] Rowling posted a tweet, supposedly demonstrating her support of transgender people, that implied trans people are sexual predators, as Jennifer Duggan (2022) discusses. This is a hateful stereotype of gay men, which is used here both to invalidate trans women's gender and to frame them as dangerous. It also obscures the fact that not only is this claim unbacked by research, but transgender women are far more likely to be assaulted than cis women, particularly BIPOC trans women (Tudor 2020).
[4.3] Rowling claims the reason she is called out for transphobia is that she is a woman, while failing to account for people called out for the same who are not women. Ironically, Rowling claims she is discriminated against based on sexism while she is being sexist. Rowling mobilizes inequitable versions of feminism and disability politics to forward her transphobic aims. Rowling's attempt to frame herself as a victim is also not supported by the fact that she is one of the richest and most influential people in the world (Duggan 2022; Miles 2022). As Amerigo Quatrini (2022) demonstrates, Rowling holds a position of power over society based in her celebrity and image.
[4.4] Rowling has claimed that her position is in service of the lesbian community—even while ignoring the existence of trans lesbians and while the entire Harry Potter series didn't include a single sapphic character. In fact, within her writing, Rowling has explicitly included ableist, fatphobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and racist depictions (Maätita and Hernandez 2022). Moreover, as discussed by Alyosxa Tudor (2020), Rowling escalated her transphobia in the midst of Black Lives Matter protests. Tudor finds that this is an example of white women using trans-exclusionary claims as a distraction from reckoning with their racism.
5. Rowling and fans
[5.1] While some fans have taken a stand against Rowling's transphobia, others seem to rationalize nostalgia over ethical commitments. For example, some fans rely on Roland Barthes's ([1967] 1997) death of the author model in their treatment of Rowling. This model suggests that once a literary text is written, the author is not relevant to its reading. Therefore, according to those fans, Rowling is irrelevant to the text. Stephanie Huang (2022) points out that while one may use this model to interpret a text literarily, it cannot override financial, societal, political, and other influences on the world. These fans' behavior directly influences trans people's material day-to-day conditions. For example, Laura Miles (2022) found that transphobic words have dangerous consequences for the health and at times survival of trans people.
[5.2] Some fans have commented on Rowling's bigotry for decades and created fan works intended to fix the problematic aspects of her writing. However, this commentary is regularly met with transphobia, racism, misogyny, and more from other fans (Velazquez 2013). This is so common that one may speculate that for some fans, bigotry is not simply incidental but part of this fandom's appeal.
[5.3] As Rowling has become more explicitly hateful, more fans have called for a boycott of her products (Uspenskiy 2022). As Duggan (2022) discusses, Rowling punishes these fans with all the power of her following. For example, in late 2022, an ex-fan expressed disappointment with Rowling on Twitter and called for other fans to boycott her new products. Though this fan was not a celebrity and did not even tag Rowling, Rowling herself published the tweet on her public account. In her commentary, she compared not supporting her financially to burning down a library or setting one's pet dog on fire (@jk_rowling, https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1604180531155017731). This is in line with other TERFs' behavior (Duggan 2022; Pape 2022).
6. Discussion
[6.1] In 2023, Rowling funded the establishment of Beira's Place, a center for survivors of violence and rape that officially refuses to hire or serve trans women. This, despite trans women being more likely to have experienced such violence (Boe et al. 2021). Rowling claims this is because cisgender women who were assaulted by cisgender men may read transgender women as men and be triggered by them (Turnbull-Dugarte and McMillan 2022). Rowling frames Beira's Place as solely serving (a specific subgroup of) disabled women (for example, with PTSD as a result of sexual violence) who would be triggered by the appearance of trans women. In doing so, Rowling is using disability rights language to camouflage her less socially acceptable belief that trans women do not deserve access to the same post-violence and post-rape care as cis women.
[6.2] In theory, trigger warnings are part of a commitment to disability accessibility, especially in the context of a care center that is meant to cater to this specific population. However, at the time of writing, the center's website shows no sign of being prepared to support disabled survivors. Rowling and the website don't seem to address the needs of women who were assaulted by cis women (or any other gender) and their potential triggers. Furthermore, the center shows no commitment to help with triggers apart from the sole purported trigger of encountering a trans woman. In fact, the website fails to offer trigger warnings itself.
[6.3] Moreover, Beira's Place indicates nearly no interest in being accessible to disabled people in general. The website warns that the building chosen for the center is not accessible for wheelchair users. It clumsily mentions intending to resolve that in an unspecified future. It suggests that if a person is too unwell to personally come to a meeting at a prearranged time, there may be flexibility in scheduling. This seems to be the full extent of accessibility at Beira's Place at the time of writing.
[6.4] The center seems indifferent to disability access at best, rather mobilizing disability rhetoric to obscure and excuse its unjust practices. To the innocent observer, this may appear convincing because it gives the impression of centering intersectional disability justice. Those more familiar with trans and/or disabled political concerns may be confounded by the mismatch between Rowling's rhetoric (saying she wishes to protect vulnerable people) and her actions (explicitly endangering certain groups of especially vulnerable people). This usage is also effective because, as explained, sexual violence is a topic many find uncomfortable to discuss. As such, even ableist society sometimes allows for the needs of those triggered by it.
[6.5] Rowling's claims are also effective since it seems many prefer to sacrifice trans people in favor of more palatable survivors. At the time of writing, the information offered by the center about intimate partner violence and sexual abuse concentrates on straight, cisgender, white, thin, nondisabled women. It almost entirely disregards aspects of rape linked with intersection or marginalization other than that of the most privileged. The center does not seem to offer other accessibility accommodations, even though disabled people are at far higher risk for sexual abuse (Boe et al. 2021). For a center relying on the claimed need of some disabled women for a trans-exclusive space, it seems suspicious not to offer programs addressing the urgent, real needs of disabled survivors—for example, a traveling service providing meetings at disabled survivors' homes or other accessible places; programs for financially dependent people, recognizing capitalism's treatment of disabled people; peer groups for multiply marginalized survivors; or, at the very least, a location with wheelchair access.
[6.6] Beyond being unethical, withholding care from trans people does not fulfill the center's stated accessibility need. Some cisgender women may still be triggered by nontrans people with a masculine appearance. This was demonstrated by the discussion around the 2024 Olympics, where cisgender boxer Imane Khelif was labeled a man by Rowling and her name was dragged on social media. Thus, Rowling's actions fail even her stated goal of protecting cis women. Rather, they reinforce structural gendered violence and increase harm against all women. What we learn from this case study is that Rowling's alleged commitments to women and disabled people are mere cover for her true goal: perpetuating transphobia.
[6.7] Caring about one type of trigger and not others, one type of accessibility and not others, is ableist in and of itself. Rowling uses the taboo around sexual violence to frame it as a more important trigger than others. It is attributed more importance than triggers caused by transphobia. Rowling here is exploiting the language and taboo afforded only to the sexual violence trigger to justify her transphobia.
7. Conclusion
[7.1] Since speaking about sexual violence is already taboo in our society, content warnings about this topic fit easily into the hegemonic norm. Many people, regardless of survivorship status or disability, may find this topic uncomfortable and so support the practice of warning for it. However, in my experience, educators and people in general are less likely to respect content warnings on topics considered mundane. Nondisabled people who do not need warnings for apparently innocuous topics like doctor's visits do not experience this access need and have shown me that they do not believe it to be an access need that they need to respect—or, indeed, even a genuine need at all. This is the case because broader society is not invested in the underlying disability accessibility motivation of trigger warnings but merely in reinforcing existing perceptions of acceptable topics for public discourse. Thus, bad actors like Rowling are appropriating the disability language of content warnings, detached from antiableist action, in an attempt to excuse their transphobia.
[7.2] Hopefully, we will all become more educated about disability, trans rights, and lived experiences, so we are not fooled by attempts such as this. I hope feminists, disabled people, and trans people can stand together for our shared, genuine goals.
8. Acknowledgments
[8.1] I am deeply thankful to Maya Rozenshein, Shiri Eisner, and the wonderful symposium team and the special issue editors. Their notes and insights made this article so much better and were a delight to receive.