This is going to set some heads on fire. One day after a group of NY Times contributors and celebrities sent a letter to the Times complaining about their coverage of trans issues, the paper has published an opinion piece titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling.” The piece is written by Pamela Paul and does what almost no one involved in attacking Rowling has been willing to do: Look at the facts.

In 2020, The Leaky Cauldron, one of the biggest “Harry Potter” fan sites, claimed that Rowling had endorsed “harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person,” letting members know it would avoid featuring quotes from and photos of the author.

Other critics have advocated that bookstores pull her books from the shelves, and some bookstores have done so. She has also been subjected to verbal abuse, doxxing and threats of sexual and other physical violence, including death threats…

This campaign against Rowling is as dangerous as it is absurd. The brutal stabbing of Salman Rushdie last summer is a forceful reminder of what can happen when writers are demonized. And in Rowling’s case, the characterization of her as a transphobe doesn’t square with her actual views.

So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.

The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.

Pamela Paul concludes, “nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic.” All of this is the subject of a new podcast being launched next week by The Free Press. The podcast is based on nine hours of interviews with Rowling, her most lengthy discussion of her views on this topic.

Predictably, Paul’s piece is not going over well with Rowling’s haters. An editor at Buzzfeed:

in my more empathetic moments i have to imagine that someone like a pamela paul is driven by a very primal fear about her inability to understand or adapt to the world. what i will never understand is why anyone would pay her to spray that shit around in public

— Rachel Sanders (@rachelysanders) February 16, 2023

Someone from Media Matters:

Does this op-ed mention the British teenager who was brutally murdered for being trans this week? No.

Does it compare JK Rowling to Salman Rushdie and her LGBTQ critics to the Westboro Baptist Church? This is Pamela Paul we’re talking about here. pic.twitter.com/ML3XwzmJOi

— Ari Drennen (@AriDrennen) February 16, 2023

From Slate:

we don’t need another novel-length dissection of what terrible writer Pamela Paul is, but the level of argument here wouldn’t past muster in high school English. “If a writer assigned to some Outbrain-level chum can’t find any evidence, it must simply not exist. QED.” pic.twitter.com/FCBv2u0bav

— Sam Adams (@SamuelAAdams) February 16, 2023

This author of “queer books for kids” canceled his NY Times subscription.

Immediately cancelled my New York Times subscription today. Stop giving Pamela Paul a platform to defend people like JKR and DeSantis. Focus on the trans people who are dying.

What a joke, @nytimes. You know what you're doing, enjoy your rage clicks. https://t.co/Wxff7ysjQC

— Phil Stamper (@stampepk) February 16, 2023

This person regrets not vomiting on Pamela Paul:

I should’ve thrown up on Pamela Paul at the Miami Book Fair when I had the chance. What good is food poisoning for if not for activism? pic.twitter.com/9m9Scaerda

— Saeed Jones (@theferocity) February 16, 2023

And on and on it goes:

Was today’s Pamela Paul column rushed to print as a “fuck you” response to the open letter, or just stellar timing. Hard to say, since this kind of content is truly relentless!

— Louis Peitzman (@LouisPeitzman) February 16, 2023

Everyone is transphobic!

Just to be clear, every time you say that something for women should only be for cis women, you're being transphobic.

J.K. Rowling is transphobic. Pamela Paul is transphobic. pic.twitter.com/O8VZq9AnZT

— Zack Ford (@ZackFord) February 16, 2023

It’s interesting that the readers responding to the column on the NY Times‘ site are much more favorable to it than the professional left complaining on Twitter. Here’s the top comment (more than 2,700 upvotes):

Trans activism is aggressive, over-the-top and is losing allies. I’m gay so I’m supposed to be a devoted ally. I am an ally but it’s not good enough, how dare me suggest a biological woman really is different. That makes me a Trump supporter. Congrats to Rowling and all women who are pushing back on this ridiculousness.

The second most upvoted comment:

Ms. Rowling arguably did more to promote children’s literacy than any other author in history, and that should be considered her greatest contribution to the world. Her views are not transphobic, they are pro-biological women, who still don’t enjoy full equality or representation in any space. Bio women can be supportive of Trans persons AND want spaces for bio women only, like sports competitions. Demanding equal access to every space when bio women don’t yet fully have that is like jumping to the front of a very long line and then screaming at everyone who calls you out for it. Bravo to Ms. Rowling for using her clout and position to speak out. Signed – a pro-LGBTQ liberal bio woman

It just keeps going like this. Clearly a large number of the paper’s subscribers feel differently about this topic.

Rowling’s position couldn’t be more commonsense – sure, there are people who feel they have been born in the wrong body, and those people deserve safety, respect, and self-fulfillment, but biological sex is also real and there are good reasons why there are spaces for biological women only, just as they are good reasons for the existence of women-only sports. The fact that these innocuous views came to be seen as ‘-phobic’ testifies only to the extremism of her opponents. But, the tide has started to turn, as evidenced by the closure of the Tavistock clinic in London (which allowed young people to transition without proper medical evaluation) and the fiasco with putting a rapist with male genitalia in a women’s prison in Scotland (which contributed to Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation). There will still be some screaming about ‘transphobia’ for a while, but soon we will be able to have an adult conversation about gender and sex once again, and we will have Ms. Rowling to thank for that.

There are some commenters criticizing Rowling and Paul if you scroll down far enough but it’s a district minority, at least among the top 50 comments. So readers seem to support the column but I think the backlash on Twitter has just begun. Would not be shocked if there were another internal battle within the Times‘ newsroom seeking to oust Pamela Paul. There is a heretic among them who is defending the chief heretic (Rowling) and my guess is they won’t tolerate it.