Saturday, 15 August 2026

Rowling's transgender views cast in stone

 

Can I say something in defense of J.K. Rowling? She sticks to her principles. That’s what I say to my daughter, anyway.

Rowling, the wealthiest and most famous author of our century, has raised a lot of controversy for her views on transgender issues. Much of her fanbase, including my daughter, has been turned off by her views. So much so, she no longer wears her Harry Potter attire in public (true story).

I listened to a revealing podcast, called the Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, where the author is given opportunity to explain herself. I heard her point of view, and then I judged her – ahem – I mean, I critiqued her views. Assuming you have no idea what I’m even talking about, here is what I’ve learned.

Rowling (whose first name is Joanne – J.K. was suggested by her publisher so young male readers wouldn’t be turned off by a female author), is a liberal who once had to defend her books against fundamentalist Christians who believed her books promoted witchcraft. In fact, her books are still among the most banned in the world. As a self-proclaimed feminist, she is an unlikely critic of a progressive issue like the rights of transgender people.

Part of it has to do with her own personal experience. A victim of domestic violence, Rowling argues that policies identifying transitioned men as women pose a risk to women’s safety. Men who have transitioned shouldn’t be allowed in women’s prisons, in women’s bathrooms, or to work in rape centres, she asserts. But she has also made comments that have questioned the validity of men who now call themselves women.

This might sound reasonable to us older folk, but not to my daughter, nor her friends, nor, dare I suggest, almost all of Gen Z. To them, Rowling’s strident stance comes across as cold and intolerant. My daughter had friends in high school who wanted to be referred to as they/them. Their pronouns changed but none fully transitioned. Even if they had, it wouldn’t have been a big deal to my daughter and her peers – they respected and supported them and, unlike some politicians, didn't make it into a bigger issue than what it was.

This is a different generation. Theres an openness that didn’t exist during my time in high school when gay kids were fearful to come out of the closet. Today, young people can more freely talk about their sexual preferences and gender identities.

Yet some of the most victimized people in this world continue to be those of the LGBTQ community. Transgender youth in particular are a vulnerable minority (a very small minority, to be clear) who struggle first and foremost with the decisions they make to change their bodies and how they will be perceived by friends and family

Rowling says she doesn’t oppose transgender people – in fact, she says she would walk with them in support – but her vocal views against their equal rights cast doubt. She sticks to the claim that women will somehow be harmed. 

I would argue it’s not so black and white. There can be guardrails built into any new policy. Transgender women should probably not be in all-female prisons if they haven’t had gender reassignment surgery, for instance. There are always rules that can be put in place, even though, in general, these are not dangerous people.

Where she has a point is that undergoing sex reassignment surgery at a young age is risky if that person is not properly assessed. This is an irreversible surgery that can potentially cause emotional trauma for a young person if they later regret their choice. Again, there need to be guardrails put in place when evaluating young people who are about to undergo permanent changes to their bodies.

But Rowling’s underlying issue, from what I heard, is the potential harm to women. It almost sounded as though she fears men are going to start dressing like women so they can abuse them more easily. But the statistics show that most abuse is not random. It’s not inflicted by men who dress as women but rather cis men in relationships with women. If anything, there should be more laws to protect women from domestic abuse and from those who abuse their positions of power.

Rowling seems to think transgender people are the real threat to society. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t so long ago that similar views were held of gay people.

Such views rarely hold up with the passage of time.

Saturday, 8 August 2026

Saskatoon Separatists Unite!

 

The one thing Alberta separatists forget is that the Canadian flag goes bye-bye. No more half-torn Maple leaf flags flowing from the back of your pickup trucks. And no more F Trudeau (or F— Carney??) imprinted on your back windows. That’s the sole right of Saskatchewan rednecks now.

Don’t get me wrong, I take separatist threats seriously. The threat of Quebec separation in the 1990s was very real, like a potential divorce after a long marriage. As it turns out, we can still live together, just in different rooms. 

The threat of Alberta separation, by contrast, feels more like a prepubescent teenager threatening to run away from home. A wealthy prepubescent teenager, mind you, like a child star who struck it rich and now wants to leave his loving parents. And no, I don’t feel bad saying this. Because I’m from Saskatchewanmuch the same lineage, but a little more responsible and a whole lot poorer. We’re the little brother who can’t afford to run away.

I can understand how Quebec feels different from the rest of Canada with their distinct language and culture, but how exactly is Alberta unique? They have a higher chance of wearing cowboy hats? Even that is suspect.

Alberta likes to rebel because they can. They’ve got economic clout. They’ve been saving up, working the oil rigs for years in order to run away from Liberal Canada.

I understand how you feel, Albertans, but have you really thought things through?  You’ve heard of Brexit, right? The U.K. has had seven prime ministers since that fateful vote in 2016. Is Danielle Smith prepared to be president of a failed state? (Remember, Trump is watching.)

When Quebec threatened to leave Canada, the question was raised as to whether Quebec could also be split up. Most Indigenous people didn’t want to leave Canada, arguing that portions of northern Quebec should remain as part of Canada.

If Alberta were to separate, a more comical question arises: Can Lloydminster really be split up? Will we erect our own version of the Berlin wall, keeping the Albertans on one side and Canadians on the other? Cross the border for low-tax lumber and you might be shot!

If everything can be split up based on political differences, then maybe Edmonton should consider separating from Alberta. Maybe it’s time Saskatoon separates from Saskatchewan. Saskatoon Separatists Unite!

Let’s be our own little nations and make our own little laws. It’ll be fun, at least for the first few months.

It’s not good for any nation to split up, at least not at this point in world history. Strength is in numbers. Our species is one of cooperation, leading to the great success story of the modern world we live in. Did I mention that divorce can be financially ruinous??

The economic argument is something that should appeal to Albertans. How do they think they’ll get more oil out to port as their own country? Carney will charge them an arm and a leg for each barrel that flows out. Let’s not forget it was Trudeau (the F—Trudeau guy) who bought and expanded a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast, tripling the amount of oil that can be transported, at NO COST to Albertans!

The only thing that Alberta will get from separation is the very real possibility of becoming the 51st state. And I guarantee you, Trump will not be buying you any more pipelines.


Too dark? How about this AI-generated image of Lloydminster after Alberta separation? 😅


Chaos at the AB-SK border