The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling - Chapter 7: What If You're Wrong?

Episode Date: March 28, 2023

Host Megan Phelps-Roper asks J.K. Rowling to respond to pushback from some of her critics. The two also discuss the difficulty of discernment—why it can be so hard to know what’s right. Produced by Andy Mills, Matthew Boll, Megan Phelps-Roper, with special thanks to Candace Mittel Kahn and Emily Yoffe. This show is proudly sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE believes free speech makes free people. Learn more at thefire.org.

Hello, dear listener. I'm Megan, host of this series. And before we get into the show, I wanted to take a minute to tell you about our sponsor, Fire, the foundation for individual rights and expression. We live in a moment when free speech. The bedrock of our democracy and of all free societies is often viewed as suspect, where many argue that the right to free speech is too dangerous, and that even listening to ideological opponents is morally wrong. Many people just don't see a problem with using the law, corporate power, and even extraordinary social pressure to censor viewpoints they disagree with.

But many of us feel the cost of all this in our everyday lives. We feel it when we self-sensor, afraid to say what we really think. Sometimes even in private conversations with friends or loved ones, we feel it when we opt out of a growing number of public discussions, afraid of the potential cost to our jobs

and even our relationships. Fire shares a mission with this show. To remind us why a culture of free speech and open dialogue matters, and regardless of how loud the calls for censorship are, fire's defense of that culture is unshakable and invaluable. And if you want to remember why we choose freedom, even for people we strenuously disagree with, you can learn more about fire's incredible work at thefire.org.

And now, onto the show. I'm going to go to the next one. If you find yourself as I did in Edinburgh, Scotland, and you walk west from lawn market of a cobblestone street to Castle Hill. Gather round, we cheese. We're going to get children to the front. Hello. Hello. Welcome to this lovely thing. There, in the shadow of an ancient castle, on most days,

you'll find a tour guide wearing a black, pointy, which is hat. No. Aren't we so lucky? We live in a time where we're free to say the word which, to even be which if we so wish. Others throughout the ages were not so lucky as you will find out. The tourists gather around her,

forming a little half moon as they pull out their phones and cameras to take pictures of a small stone monument. Now, here we've got the witch as well. This little monument put up in order to honor all of those people who are executed as witches. In the winter of 1591, the witch as well commemorates an especially deadly series of witch hunts and is dedicated to those who were put to death, many in this very place centuries ago.

They were tied to states, they were strangled and then they were burnt as witches. Throughout Scotland, more than 4,000 people were accused of being witches and more than half of them were executed. We don't know exact numbers because in some accounts it just says, sundry witches, not even dignified them with a name. These sorts of witch trials have occurred throughout human history and around the world, where someone, most often a woman, was accused by her community, by her neighbors, sometimes by her own husband or children, of being a witch, which left her with a terrible decision. She could confess and beg for mercy from the authorities, which, in some cases, spared

her life. But in others, only confirmed her guilt and led to her execution. Or she could stand firm through her interrogation and often torture and say to the crowd, I am not what you say I am, though this was often seen as a prideful lack of repentance, which could also lead to her execution. Regardless of her choice, one feature of many of these witch hunts was that the very accusation itself was ultimately her condemnation. Hi, Megan. Hi, Stacey. Thank you so much for speaking with me. I'm delighted to join you.

This is Stacey's shift. Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer and author of The Witches, Salem, 1692. Stacey, you published this book in 2016. And I just wonder, with the first time I've ever seen a book in the92. Stacy, you published this book in 2016 and I just wonder, would there something specific that made you want to research and write this book about witch trials at this specific moment in time?

There just seemed to me to be so many obvious and not so obvious parallels between that moment and basically what we do today on social media. And I think what I was most struck by was the sense that oral culture and social media were very similar. And the ability to slander someone, to just really decimate someone's reputation very easily, was something that was a constant between 1692 and the world in which we were then living when I started writing. In America, the witch trials that occurred in Salem, Massachusetts are by far the most

infamous. It was there that a zealous group of fundamentalists, the Puritans, turned on one another. And in the span of months, accused over 200 people of witchcraft, and a Stacey writes in her book, one of the forces behind this panic was an almost paranoid sense of constant danger. One can't overstate how important was the concept of watchfulness. You were meant to be always watchful, always vigilant,

not only for the sake of your soul, but obviously in the Massachusetts incarnation for the sake of your safety. The Puritans believed that evil was lurking all around them, constantly tempting them with sinfulness that could dam their souls. But also, because they were living on the edge of this new colony in a land whose native people were hostile to their presence,

they were also living constantly on guard against a real threat of physical danger. But there was always a sense that you were under assault or that you were likely to be infiltrated or that the enemy was just beyond your means. So there is this constant sense of being on the watchtowers. And needless to say, when you're watching for something, and you're watching vigilantly for something, you often see something. But Stacy's book makes clear just how different the people of Salem were from the image of

the ignorant, pitchfork wielding mob. In fact, they could be obsessive about reading and legal theory, and the witch trial judges themselves were well-educated men, a number of them at Harvard. I think one of the oddities about New England in the 17th century and the question of witch craft is that you're talking about one of the most literate communities in the 17th century and the question of witchcraft is that you're talking about one of the most literate communities in the history of the world, possibly the most literate, community in the history of the world until that time. It was imperative that everyone pray and in order to pray, one had to read.

So the literacy rate was tremendously high. Moreover, the people who were the witchcraft experts that year, which is largely to say the clergy, are all of them immensely ariodi people who have read everything there is to be read on the subject of witchcraft. So it's a funny paradox in the sense that you have the members of the community who are invested most in this, what we would today call delusion, those individuals are, in fact, the best-read, most highly educated members of the community. And what rooted courts and laws

and the concept of justice play in this society? Justice is central to Puritism. The court records from the early years of New England are almost laughably comprehensive. And you see that even in the absence of lawyers, because there were no lawyers yet, at this point in Massachusetts history, you have a very, very law-loving, court-loving society.

And because they were so literate and so litigious, Stacey Schiff in researching her book, was able to read their letters, their journals, their court records, and gain a deeper insight into how they understood themselves. And your best judgment, what do you think is the most gracious understanding of what they thought they were up to when they prosecuted these witches? I think that what we tend to forget is how strongly the belief in witchcraft really penetrates this community and how thoroughly and I think profoundly everyone involved believed that

he was doing something that was good for the community. We have some indication that they were unclear about how to prosecute witchcraft. And they will, at times, one justice in particular, they at times will appeal to the ministry to ask what kind of evidence they can rely upon in the courtroom and how a witchcraft diagnosis could and should be made. And obviously, there were people here who must have trumped up charges.

But for the most part, all of the judicial techniques which should have been followed were followed. It's really fascinating, again, because when we think about which trials looking back, we assume, I mean, the idea that they would be strenuously adhering to the rules of evidence and things that they had in place at the time, that they were really trying to do the right thing. In other words, that's not the image that we get. No, but you can see them grappling with their consciences and you can see them grappling with the testimony.

I mean, Arthur Miller actually makes a really interesting point when he's talking about the crucible. And he talks about something which is so true of that urine salam, which is that you, in the course of these kinds of prosecutions, you can take on the characteristics of the thing that you abhor. You become the thing that you most fear. That's really the scariest part of all this, right?

Is it totally? You could have people who are, again, very smart, very well educated, very dedicated to the idea of justice, to the idea that they want to do the right thing, and to be searching themselves so deeply for what the right answer is and how they should behave and to still come to this kind of horrifying conclusion where you have 19 people hanged. And it's a terrifying thing to realize about what it means to be human. After you have done all of your homework, asked all of the authorities for their help

and essentially scoured your soul and you still can make that kind of colossal error. Yeah. I was so ill-equipped for what happened to me. I was living in a state of real tension that I couldn't express to many people. So looking back, would you say that the Christian parents were maybe part of a moral panic? Yeah, absolutely. It's just scary world out there. People can make mistakes, people can do bad things. In fact, show me the human being who hasn't. You're trashing someone, but you feel like you're crusading. You guys can keep dodging your fucking trashes!

Let's get up, bud! Let's go! I believe absolutely that there is something dangerous about this movement. Someone like her, she really is just truly at the heart, bigoted, hiding in this sheep's costume, pretending that she isn't hallowed. You're trying to have your views challenged. Completely, I'm looking at this, I'm thinking, am I missing something? It's just the opposite of everything that she wrote into those books. I have a lot of hope

for her. This part of me that still cares what she thinks, you know. Chapter 7. What if you're wrong? Chapter 7. What if you're wrong? Oh, sorry, thank you. Months after my first visit, my producers and I went back to Scotland, back to Rowling's home, back to her drawing room, with her color-coordinated books, to have one more conversation with her for this series. I wanted to ask her some of the questions from her critics, and to help me understand how she, someone who has devoted so much

of her life's work to exploring human nature, grapples with the fact that she might be wrong. All right. Okay. Gathered here today. Yes. Record. Round two. Sounds good. Okay.

What do you think is the crux of the difference between what you believe and what your critics say you believe? Oh my God. I mean, the crux, there's an abyss. I've been a king. I've been, I have to laugh because the hyperbole is so extreme. I've been told, I wish for the genocide of trans people, I've been told, well, you want them to die, you don't want them to exist.

And that, I think, is where we become. It's not even infuriated. Sometimes you feel a little despair. You think maybe we need the storm to break and for people to say, but wait a moment, we do need to ask questions. We've seen thousands of percent increase in young women trying to escape their physical bodies. Should we not be asking why that's happening?

I think the idea is that you have become for a lot of people, you know, the word is problematic, that you might think of yourself as raising these valid concerns, but they will criticize either the way you've gone about it or the timing of it or the language you've used and much more. But before we get into some specifics, I did just want to ask, at this point, how does it feel that there is this gulf between how you see yourself and how many other people now see you? I'm, this will sound like an indirect answer, but I promise you it isn't.

If I think about the people I most admire, actually even the writers I most admire, when it mattered they stood up, they didn't sit at home and worry about their royalties or worry about their public image greatly. Not that I seek to be controversial, that's embarrassing as seeking to be some sort of perfect, I never wanted to be famous. So if you're very invested in that, then of course this is going to destroy you.

I mean, I don't say this in any self-aggrandizing way, but I think it could have destroyed some people. If that's where you're very invested, what has happened to me in the last few years, I think there's no hope that you will come out of it with your mental health intact or that you wouldn't be, you know, offering full sum of apologies, I've learned, I've done better, I understand that, whether you mean it or not, you know, that, but now I have learned, I did my learning before I spoke. Everyone can do better. I don't set out to cause pain,

but I see pain being caused, and I think damage being caused to women and girls, and I just can't sit here and not speak. One of your critics is a trans woman named Natalie Wynn, who goes by the name Contra Points on YouTube, and she made a long video essay critiquing your views on trans issues. And in it, she goes through how she understands bigotry,

which she breaks down into two categories, direct bigotry and indirect bigotry. Direct bigotry is the sort of thing that my family does, being openly contemptuous and using slurs and demonizing people, marginalizing people openly. And indirect bigotry is things like, people are just asking questions. They're just concerned. They're engaging in debate. Activists have gone too far, political correctness, cancel culture. In other words, it's the idea that there are bad actors who can hide behind

virtues or less extreme rhetoric, but who are still undermining people's rights. I see this constantly and that the most frequent example of that is they're pretending to be concerned about children. It's not about the children. They really hate trans people. Now, if you're saying the indirect bigotry is asking questions,

where you believe significant harm is done, if you're saying indirect bigotry is standing up for women's rights, then you know what, guilty is charged. I think it is a very bad faith argument to say that people who are asking questions are being indirect bigots. Because, you know, that itself, in my view, is a very bad faith position. Do you think that some people do use those kinds of, like, I guess, I'm thinking here of like actual people that most people would recognize as bigots? Complete. Pretty much everyone in the world, but literal psychopaths and clear terrible predators

are concerned about hum to children, okay? So that's a very common human trait. It's a human trait to want to protect the vulnerable and children are very vulnerable. The trouble is, you see, one may use concern about children to justify other actions. You know, QAnon felt that children were being trafficked and raped.

One may be concerned about children and be correct. People around Jimmy Savile, the UK's most famous predator, believed children were being harmed, but his celebrity and his ability to raise money for charity was such that nobody wanted to look into that. So, I'm not sure it's as simple as saying people are using it. Some people may genuinely believe children being harmed and also genuinely not want anyone to be trans, that is not my position. You have said that you respect trans people. You said that you would march with them. That you think the transition is right for some people. But you also say that there's a real difference between biological women and trans women and a meaningful distinction between the two in their experiences.

And I think some of your critics point to that and say, you're essentially making trans women, second class women, you know, like you're almost women that despite all of their efforts to live in the world as women, as what feels right and authentic to them, you are essentially saying, I'll treat you as a woman, you are an honorary woman, but this distinction that you are essentially saying, I'll treat you as a woman, you are an honorary woman, but this distinction that you are emphasizing,

the biological distinction that you see as being so important, it can feel hurtful to them. They are almost a thing, but not quite. Something is being held back. Can you understand the pain that that could cause? Yes, it's the short answer. Yes, I can understand that hurt. The thing is, women are the only group to my knowledge that are being asked to embrace members of their oppressor class unquestioningly with no caveat. Now, on an individual basis, and I think many people knew to this argument would see it

on that level, because many people of my generation particularly think that we're talking about old school transexuals, people who have been through full sex reassignment because of profound gender dysphoria. And I feel 100% compassion for such people, and I would absolutely respect their pronouns always have, always will, and would want, as I say, them to have comfortable, easy lives. This movement, though, is pressing for something different, very different. This movement has argued, continues to argue, that a man may have had no surgery whatsoever. But if he feels himself to be a woman, the door of every woman's bathroom, changing room,

rape centre should be open to him. I say no, I'm afraid I say no. And we are in a cultural moment where that individual's hurt is being prioritised over the hurt of women whose rights and boundaries are under sustained assault. And I think it's interesting to ask why the pain of one group is being prioritized over the pain of other groups. Yeah, maybe a simpler way to ask it is that is there a way in your mind to respect both pains, even though at some point obviously there's going to be a moment where action or decision has to be made? I do believe that there is a way forward in which women and girls retain

their existing rights and trans people are properly protected. There is a way, absolutely a way to respect both points, but I think we're currently unfortunately at a place where that is very difficult to achieve. I believe feminists have tried very hard to have this discussion. How do we ensure everyone's rights and safety? Where does fairness lie?

For example, in issues like sport would be a very obvious one that's getting a lot of publicity at the moment. Feminists are asking for certain spaces. Rape shelters would be a very obvious example to remain female only, or to have separate provision for both groups because I don't know single feminist who doesn't acknowledge that trans people also, of course, are victims of sexual violence. But at the moment, there seems to be a very black and white view on the other side of the argument.

It's everything or nothing. When it comes to the bathroom question, we've heard from a lot of people that essentially that the wrists just don't seem very high to them. Many of them can understand why males and females shouldn't be housed in the same prison cells. But when it comes to bathrooms, like, there already aren't guards at the door, and like, nobody's checking before we go in.

And essentially, a bad actor would have come in regardless of whatever our conventions are. Dispory quite strongly on that. There is a social taboo. There has been until very recently strongly on that. There is a social taboo. There has been until very recently, historically, there has been a social taboo. So that if my husband decided that he wanted to use the latest bathroom,

the women inside will feel confident in challenging his right to be there. And I think, in my view, most decent men watching a man walking into the latest bathroom might well challenge him too. That is now being eroded. So we have statistics on this. The Sunday Times issued a freedom of information request from the government. 88% of sexual assaults happen in unisex spaces.

We have had multiple... The Sunday Times data rolling is referencing referencing specifically addressed reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in changing rooms at sports centers and swimming pools, and compared the rates of incidents that occurred in single sex versus unisex changing rooms. We have had multiple instances in this country and in America because I went and looked because I was thinking, well, does this happen? And it happens, voyeurism, sexual assault. The men, particularly arguing that this isn't a risk, alarm me candidly. Are they naive? Do they know what, not know what their fellow men do?

There are a lot of critics who say, you and your comments are giving fuel to the right. Well, my answer would be, I think you're giving fuel to the right. This is why many left-wing feminists in particular are sitting with their head in their hands. The right has wanted a'r ddodd yn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyn ymdyndyn ymdyn ym part of the left's broader degeneracy. When you defend the placing of rapists in cells with women, you are handing the right a perfect opportunity to say, you see, we told you the moral degeneracy that would result, if you say homosexual relationships are okay. And I think for many leftists, for many feminists, we are despairing of the fact that people are in our view, colluding with a deeply misogynist movement, which is benefiting politically speaking the far right.

And I worry very deeply that as the left becomes increasingly puritanical and authoritarian and judgmental, we are pushing swathes of people towards not just the right, it's pushing them to the alt-right. That's what scares me, that particularly young men, when they're being told everything in the world is their fault and they have no right to a voice and they are everything that is wrong with society. It is unfortunately a human reaction to go to the place where you will be embraced and if the only place where you can make a joke or be accepted

is a place that is full of poisonous ideas, then you're likely to go there, particularly when you're young. So I think that the left is making a tremendous mistake in espousing this kind of, in my view, quasi-religious, incredibly sort of witch-hunting behavior, because there will be people who will just feel when they've been shamed and abused, and they feel it was unfair, where are they gonna go?

You know, that worries me very deeply. They've been shamed and abused and they feel it was unfair. Where are they gonna go? You know, that worries me very deeply. In my lifetime, we've seen such a shift on the left. And I still would define myself as off the left. But, you know, I was born in the 60s when transgression really was the preserve of the left. You know, when challenging authority and making the doctor, when breaking societal norms was very much the preserve of the left. I've lived to see the left become

incredibly puritanical and rigid and watching the alt-right and this isn't a new phenomenon. The alt-right is not the conservative right, with whom I disagree on many, many things. I'm just saying we're seeing the growth of something very much facilitated by the internet that the alarms and disturbs me. And it worries me that the left are absolutely playing into that demographic's hands. You wrote a book, many books, where young children have a lot of autonomy and make very adult decisions and Some of them come with really great risks and that's like sneaking off into a dungeon or Running away to fight the most powerful wizard who has ever existed and

Some of your critics wonder if there's something contradictory in saying that young people are not old enough To know who they are, to make this decision about whether to medically transition. Those are fantasy books, and the point of fantasy is that we are allowed to explore an imagination, things that frighten us, challenges, we're allowed to escape into a world that's scary, but then we can come back, we can close the book, we can think about what we've read, we can think about what it means to make irreversible decisions. By contrast, we are dealing with the real world here, we're dealing with children, in my view, being persuaded that a solution for all distress is lifelong medicalisation.

That is real-world harm. There's no closing the book and walking away. There's no playing with this, experimenting with this, and not suffering harm in my view. Now, people will say, perhaps, that you've already said that for some people this will be the answer. And I will say, yes, for persistent gender dysphoria, I believe, I certainly hope that for adults who have found no other way to resolve their gender dysphoria, transition may be the answer, I want to see those people protected, I want their rights protected, I wish them lives full of joy and fulfillment. But when we're talking about children, I think that is a very different question.

Now, you've said that you've been immersing yourself in a lot of reading, memoirs and philosophy and academic literature all around the subject. And I know that one thing that's made this conversation about miners medically transitioning. So contentious is that because it's quite new, there aren't a lot of authoritative studies. And so with the studies that are out there, the assertion is that people on all sides are cherry-picking to fit their arguments. What evidence are you seeing that makes you think that you are right to be worried? What evidence are you seeing that makes you think that you are right to be worried? I haven't yet found a study that hasn't found that the majority of young people, children and adolescents, experiencing gender dysphoria, will grow out of it.

Now, I haven't found a single study that contradicts that and I have gone looking. The majority of children will, if allowed to go through adolescence, many of them will grow up, not all, but many will grow up to be gay and their gender dysphoria will resolve. Why then, if that's the evidence, are we immediately putting children onto an affirmative path? Can we follow the science? There's activism, and all activism isn't equal.

I genuinely think that we are watching one of the worst medical scandals in a century. And I believe that those who should have known better, and I'm talking here, not God knows, about trans people, gender dysphoric people, distressed young people. I'm certainly not talking about them. I am talking about medics and those who have cheered this on unquestioningly, creating a climate in which many people trying to raise red flags have been intimidated and silenced. And I would

ask proponents of gender identity ideology who are so militant, who are so determined on no debate, I would ask them, what if you are wrong? If I'm wrong, honestly, hallelujah. If I'm wrong, great. People aren't being harmed. But if you are wrong, you have cheered on, you have created a climate, quite a threatening climate in which whistleblowers and young people themselves

are being intimidated out of raising concerns. I think it was in 2018, Professor Carl Hennegan, who is of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. And he spoke up publicly and he said, we are watching an unregulated live experimental children. He was instantly condemned as a transphobe by I think the Oxford University's LGBT society. So when you say that people aren't being harmed

if you're wrong, you mean physically, because your critics say that you are harming people with your words and with the ideas that you are promoting. Well, I actually, I received an email right after I spoke out in which a left-wing man I know emailed me, and he said, a trans man had been killed in Germany. And he said to me, your rhetoric contributes to an environment in which police are less likely to investigate that crime. Now join the dots for me.

What I had said at that point is there used to be a word for people who menstruate. Is he genuinely arguing that by saying women menstruate, police investigation murder will say, well, we better wrap up the investigation. These hyperbolic accusations are thrown at anyone who challenges this ideology. Your words will cause people to kill themselves. Your words will stop police investigation. Your words will cause men to be violent trans women. Blaming women for the violence of men is a hallmark of something that is not normally seen as progressive. That is misogyny writ large.

To go back to your concern about the left feeding a backlash that might help the far-right, there has been a real and rapid loss of public trust and institutions of all kinds over the past few years. And it sounds like this experience you're having is causing you yourself to have doubts about the trustworthiness of some of our institutions in this moment. Completely. And I think that this is, I mean, we've seen this play out in the last decade,

this undermining of experts, the experts can't be trusted, the media can't be trusted, governments can't be trusted. And I would be lying if I didn't say that I have lost faith in certain institutions. I have lost a degree of faith in what is obviously the industry, I know best, the publishing industry. I've been shocked by the positions that publishing has taken. I am pleased and proud to say that my publisher has taken my editor in fact has taken a robust

position on freedom of speech. And I was relieved that he took that position not for my sake, but it was a declaration on freedom of speech that I think publishing, if publishers stamp nothing else, they should stand for plurality of views. And the other institutions that I have definitely lost faith in are educational institutions who I think have taken a very dogmatic position on this and are shutting down debate, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And I, if we cannot look to those institutions to protect those very precious things, we are in trouble. And I am afraid I think we are currently in trouble. Well, one of the concerns you voiced is around language and institutions using phrases

like birthing people or cervix havers or people who menstruate. And some of your critics just don't see a problem with this. They see it as just making language more inclusive. So for instance, in the world of journalism, the Associated Press released a new style guide explaining that when referring to transgender people phrases like is a woman or more to the point then identifies as a woman. Can you make the case to the skeptic?

Why is this an issue for you? That from the Associated Press is hugely powerful. They've edged from identified as a woman, so a man identifies as a woman, and I think we all understand what that means, into is a woman. And that's precisely the creep that I'm talking about. We are using language to make accurate definition of sex difference unspeakable. When I read news stories, woman convicted of exposing her penis on the street. Now I'm laughing, but it's not actually that funny.

I hear myself saying the words and that seems so absurd to me. But there is now a journalistic convention that no matter the crime, woman convicted of raping small boy, these are real news stories. I see that as political language, I see that as an ideological, I don't believe it to be factual, there's a body of feminists who would say these are not our crimes, these are not women's crimes. And I would say something else, I don't believe you can accurately analyse sexual violence or violence when committed by males.

And we know that 98 to 99% of sexual violence is committed by men. Women are 4,88% of victims of sexual violence. How can we record accurate data? How can we analyze this phenomenon without being able to accurately talk about who is the perpetrator and who is the victim? So what you're saying is that by changing the language there to focus, especially around sex crimes, to focus on gender rather than sex. You are obscuring an important fact, which is that biology actually is implicated there.

Exactly that. One of the things that your critics say often is some version of, I wish you would listen. Why isn't she listening to us? Because they think that nobody could possibly disagree with them if they heard what they were saying. And I truly believe that the notion that I have listened and I have read and I have learned and I've looked at the theory and I've looked at personal accounts

and still disagree is simply an asthma. So what you're saying is they think they want you to listen when really they want you to agree. I'm afraid that is exactly what I think you. And then the other extremely common question that comes up, and it comes off almost like a plea, is just why. Why are you doing this? Why can't you just let people be who they are and support them the way that you do for these outside or characters in your book? If one of those people is listening right now, how would you talk to them? What would you say to them? Can you speak to them? I would say to them, you as a human being, the

self that you are. I have the utmost respect for you. I want you protected. I want you safe, I would treat you with respect always. And I would say, I'm worried, I'm worried that you, yourself, may have got caught up in something that may ultimately harm you. But I'm asking some questions because I think some vulnerable groups are being harmed. And that includes the gay community, that includes vulnerable women, and it includes vulnerable youth. Now, if you identify as trans, if that is an answer for you, then I'm with you 100%. But we are seeing mounting evidence that this is not the answer for you, then I'm with you 100%. But we are seeing mounting evidence that this is not the answer for everyone, and that we may be living through a cultural moment that we will look back on,

not with pride, but with puzzlement that we let it happen. We'll be right back. I'm Barry Weiss and I'm the host of Honestly, a podcast where disagreement doesn't equal dislike, and where we value frank and at times blunt conversations about the biggest questions facing our society. What does a country with a Second Amendment actually do about gun violence? Is social media addiction behind the rise in self-harm among kids? Do we need to radically rethink our political system in an age of polarization? And why is America so fat? Whether I'm talking to documentarian Ken Burns about American democracy or the head of OpenAI, Sam Altman, about how technology is reshaping the world, or humorous David Sideris on how to laugh in the face of tragedy,

we always strive to have the most sincere and, yes, honest conversations you will find anywhere. Join us by subscribing to honestly on whatever podcast app you're using right now. And thanks. Here at the Free Press, we know firsthand how difficult it is to manage all of the operations

of our business and how important it is to have visibility and control over our financials. Businesses like ours just can't afford not to know our numbers, and that's why we would love to tell you about NetSuite. NetSuite by Oracle is the number one cloud financial system to power your growth, and it's trusted by over 33,000 companies. NetSuite has everything you need to grow all in one place.

With NetSuite, you can automate your processes and close your books in no time, while staying well ahead of your competition. 93% of surveyed businesses cited increased visibility and control after upgrading to NetSuite. So on behalf of the Free Press, if you run a business and you need a best-in-class financial system, we strongly recommend NetSuite. Go to NetSuite.com slash Witch Trials. For those ready to upgrade to the number one financial system for growing businesses, you can learn more about NetSuite's new 2023 financing program at NetSuite.com slash Witch Trials.

That's NetSuite.com slash Witch Trials. I'm really interested in the question of discernment. I think of this scene from one of your books that was Harry Potter in the Order of the Phoenix where Hermione, the hero and Professor Umbridge, who was clearly of the Phoenix, where Hermione, through hero, and Professor Umbridge, who is clearly in the wrong, have this showdown in class. Hermione says in a moment of defiance that she disagrees with something in her textbook and Umbridge berates her, like, who are you to disagree with this expert who wrote this textbook and punishes her? Now, to anyone reading this, it is so frustrating and unjust.

But I venture to say that no one thinks they are the umbridge. No one ever thinks that. No one ever thinks they're umbridge. And some people see you as the umbridge. You have these younger critics online, and they see Hermione as standing up to an older person with power, and they see themselves as standing up to you. Yeah, and I understand because they've told me very explicitly. How do you why they have an interpretation?

How do you know if you're a Hermione or an Umbrich? Well, if you're having a lot of fun doing it, and getting a huge sense of self-satisfaction out of it, then I do believe you may be one of the stop and think, am I getting a huge ego rush out of this? That would be a good question to ask yourself. You know, is this giving me pleasure? Because I can say from my heart, none of this has given me pleasure. It has given me anxiety. It has made me, at times, feel vulnerable. So, although I don't regret anything,

I've had concerns my family's safety. Some of the threats have not been too amusing to me. There has been fallout in my life inevitably. I still don't regret standing up. But I don't, it certainly hasn't given me pleasure on any level. You know, one of the key moments for me, so you say, you talk about righteousness. There was an incident in 2019, I believe, in which, here, rolling mention the incident that we spoke about in chapter 4,

where in a nearby Scottish town, a 10-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by an 18-year-old trans woman in a public bathroom. Some of the discourse I saw after that incident really took me back because one of the first things I saw was the TERFs love it when something like this happens. Now, what thought process has led you to believe that the TERFs, this demonized evil group, they, I mean, they just hate trans people. They want them all dead. We all know this, that's who they are.

What leads you to believe that we want 10-year-old children escape rape by a hairs whisker? How is your black and white thinking evolved to the point where you think that feminists like me actively are gleeful when women are raped or attacked? That's great. We can use this to bash trans women with. And I've seen that discourse and I think if you're thinking, is that it's not just irrational, that it's such a bad faith position. At no point you stop and say to yourself, there may be some nuance here. Is this all moving pieces on a chest book for you? Is it all a game? Does real world hurt and harm not count at all? There's one other question that I had about discernment.

So how do you know if you're fighting for something that is truly righteous or just something that appears to be righteous? How do you know that the courage to call out an injustice isn't actually just a call to join an unjust mob? Yeah. So coming from Westboro, where I believed so strongly that I was doing the right thing, and then to leave and come to believe that it was so destructive and harmful,

I had this moment in time and that lasted for many months where I was like, how can I ever trust my own mind again? Because I was so certain. And so I was trying to like looking for some kind of solid footing. Like what, what leg do I have to stand on? Like how can I trust my mind? Like what, how do I not make the same mistake again and again going forward? And so I basically came up with this list of questions that kind of grew over time. And a few of them you've alluded to already. So these are the questions that I ask myself to see, like, am I starting to go down a bad

path? So the first question is, are you capable of entertaining real doubt about your beliefs or are you operating from a position of certainty? Yeah, and I think that that's key. I think it's when we are most certain. And when we're getting that rush of adrenaline that says, God, I'm a good person. That's when we should most question ourselves.

That's when you need to stop and ask yourself a question. And the second point is, can you articulate the evidence that you would need to see in order to change your position or is your perspective unfalseifiable? We've discussed this already and I think that's a such a good question because I asked myself that question on this issue, what would I need to see and I could articulate what I would need to see to move me from my position, my thought out position.

Can you articulate your opponent's perspective in a way that they recognize or are you strumming? And I think that's excellent. And I genuinely believe I could articulate my opponent's position because I've read their books and I think people need to read these things, they need to understand what is being argued. Fourth one was, are you attacking ideas or attacking the people who hold them? Always the ideas. Are you willing to cut off close relationships with people who disagree with you, particularly over relatively small points of contention. No, I'm not.

A difference of belief is nothing to me, but I can imagine myself no longer wishing to have a relationship with a person who behaved in certain ways towards me or towards others, because I do strongly believe it's, watch what people are doing, not what they're saying. And so certain behaviors would probably be a deal breaker for me. And that would include demonizing others for small transgressions. That would be a revelation to me that that person wasn't who I thought they were probably. And then the last one was, are you willing to use extraordinary means against people who disagree with you? And by that I mean things like forcing people out of their jobs or homes, you know, violence

or threats of violence or things like what my family and I did, celebrating misfortune and tragedy. I don't know why, but that question has actually made me quite emotional that you say that to me because I sit opposite you and I like you so much and you're such a humane and reasonable person and to hear you describing those behaviors is... I can really understand why you had your long dark night of the soul. One thing that you said to me earlier in our discussion really stuck with me, you said to me that not long before you left, you said to someone, an interviewer, I'm all in and you told me, I believed that I had questioned myself and I was fine with

everything. But you said you hadn't gone deep enough, trust and obey, right? You'd never actually taken apart the most fundamental three words of your belief system? You'd never actually take in a part the most fundamental three words of your belief system. You'd never challenge those. Can you talk about that because that really interests me? Yeah, so I grew up in a family of lawyers, right? So my mom is one of 13 and I think 11 of the 13

went to law school. They were very, very smart, very analytical, very logical people, which I think 11 of the 13 went to law school. They were very, very smart, very analytical, very logical people, which I think surprised a lot of people to learn because it's easy to assume that these are just, you know, kind of redneck, swig backwards beliefs or something. And specifically with unexamined beliefs, these are just their personal prejudices

and they're living them out in the world. When, in fact, my grandfather was a well-known award-winning civil rights attorney, he was somebody who had reason to believe that he was on the right side of things, on a lot of things. And we were constantly looking around at what other people believed and other understandings of the Bible. And then going back to the word, right, going back to the King James version of the Bible and trying to show and memorizing chapter and verse why everybody else was wrong, all the evidence. So it was a constant process of examination asking these questions.

But I realized before I left that there were two fundamental premises of our ideology that I never questioned. I never truly questioned the idea that the Bible was the literal and fallible word of God and that Westbro's understanding of it was the right one, because again, it was all laid out there for me. And as much as many questions as I asked, from those two premises, essentially everything else, basically fell into place.

There were a few small contradictions that outsiders were able to find on Twitter. And I do wonder, like if not for some internal contradiction, relatively small points, if that had never revealed themselves to me, they'd never revealed themselves to me, then I would have just accepted. I would never have thought to question those two basic premises.

That actually is one of the reasons that I came up with this list, because if I asked myself all these hard questions, what I imagine, like I really thought I was digging in deep, you know, it was really terrifying to realize like even when you're really trying, even when it's an earnest attempt and all of your intellect, and again, I'm surrounded by people who are all incredibly intelligent and well-intentioned. Like, I know, I know those people. We would do anything for each other.

Like, you know, and so it's just the idea that such people could still get to a place that was so wrong and so harmful and so destructive. It helps me, I guess, now feel a lot of understanding and grace for people even when they're doing harmful things. So it's that question about, are you talking ideas of the people who hold them? That is very, it's huge to me because of the way that people were able to understand that even though I was doing horrible things, I was trying to do the right thing. And that was something that they could tap into.

And so this is, for me, even though it can be kind of scary to see what people are capable of, even when they're trying to do the right thing, it's also a hopeful thing because that desire to do good is something that you can tap into, which is why the desire to shut down debate and conversation is so alarming to me. Because that is the only thing that can ultimately change hearts and minds. And it's, I think, the only real tool we have outside of actual force and violence to make change. Yeah. Every crowd, every mob is made up of individuals and it's reaching the individuals and not allowing this to become mob on mob

that will change things for the best if we're to have any hope. And your story obviously is one of redemption. And I love everything that you say about the good in your family. I truly do. Okay, very last question. Why have you been willing to talk to me? What do you hope this does? I've been willing to talk to you specifically because you wrote me that incredible letter. And because I think I've had a hundred people at least say, explain yourself, explain yourself.

But I felt that you and I could have a conversation that interested me. And in terms of what I hope this does, I suppose I hope people enjoy the podcast honestly. I don't mean this in any arrogant way and I don't mean this in any self-pitting way. But I feel that I've said what I've said and maybe when the mist clears, some people will understand better.

Some will always hate me for what I've said. I accept that. I know I want every regret having stood up on this issue. Ever. You know, that's the price you pay. If you want to be universally and eternally beloved, then you must curate your image in a way that I'm simply not prepared to do. I'm not in the business of doing that. And I'm not taking a long bet here.

I'm not thinking, I think this cultural moment will pass and therefore I will be vindicated. I don't know what the future holds. I only know that I would have betrayed myself and I passionately believe I would have betrayed a lot of women and girls if I had not stood up on this issue. There are more important things in this world than being popular.

And that doesn't mean it's more important to me to be right. It means it's more important to me to do the right thing. Joel Rowling, thank you so much for speaking with me. Thank you. Are we good? I mean, you got anything else to say? Yeah. I'm having a good time today.

I'm having a good time. I'm really good. You've been listening to the witch trials of JK Rowling. This series is dedicated to everyone out there who's trying to have difficult conversations, trying to listen with empathy and to speak with honesty and in good faith, even when it's hard. So much has happened since we started our reporting, and we'll be back in a month or so with a bit of an epilogue, so stay tuned. But in the meantime, if this show has meant something to you, if it has moved you or

provoked you or inspired you, or maybe caused you to question some of your assumptions, please share it with your community. Share it with your friends or family. Start a podcast club, discuss it, debate it, join the public conversation as messy as it can be sometimes. And if you think we've missed something or have recommendations for our team, we're always happy to hear from you. You can send us an email at whichtrialsatvp.com or send me a message on Twitter at Megan Phelps. And if you would, please leave us a review on Apple or Spotify to help others discover the show.

And now, for some thank yous. The witch trials of JK Rowling was produced by Andy Mills, Matthew Bull, and me, Megan Phelps-Roper, with production and editing support from Candice Mattelcon. The series is brought to you by The Free Press. The show was mixed by Matthew Bull, sound design by Andy Mills and Matthew Bull. Editorial Advising by Barry Weiss, additional editing support from Emily Yafi, original music composed and performed by Peter Lailish, Kobe Beenert, John Ivans, and Matthew Bull. The wonderful readings from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in Episode

1 were performed by actor Crispin Letz with special permission from JK Rowling. Our beautiful artwork was created by Eliana Blazer-Gould with art direction by Susie Weiss, fact checking by Natalie Ballard and me. Special thanks to Stephanie Roper, Kate Yelland, Rebecca Salt, Noah Phelps Roper, Laura Floyd, Lucy Biggers, Jonathan Hunt, Isaac Grafstein, Alex Burns, Camille Foster, Aaron Bull, Katie Herzog, Jesse Single, Joy Neal, Cat Rosenfield, Lacey Green, Noah's Dad, J, Maya Sokan, Buck Angel, Karinne Khan, Marcy Bowers, and Jonathan Height. And to many patient and supportive members of my family, including Joyce, Marlin, Tor, and Solvyn Lynn Fiehlend,

Josh Phelps-Roper, Nancy Taves, and Tom Kennett. And of course, our thanks to JK Rowling for inviting us into her home. Last but not least, our most profound thanks goes to everyone who shared their stories with us, and to our friends, who listened and gave us encouragement and feedback along the way. Goodbye for now, but we'll see you all soon in the epilogue. you