The latest chapter of the “Witch Trials of JK Rowling” podcast was released yesterday and in this one Rowling is asked directly about some of the allegations made by her critics. Specifically she was asked about a video in which trans woman Natalie Wynn accused Rowling of “indirect bigotry” Here’s a slide from Wynn’s 90-minute-long YouTube video which as been viewed more than 6 million times since it went up 2 years ago.

Wynn’s argument is that there’s no difference between people yelling slurs and those asking questions or expressing concern except for the tone. Underneath, she believes the bigotry is the same.

I can see why this view would appeal to trans activists but I think there’s a pretty obvious problem with it. The behaviors on the left are generally considered, at a minimum, uncivil and in some cases illegal. So society has, more or less, tried to minimize the behaviors on the left in favor of a general tolerance we can call liberalism. Not liberalism in the right-left sense but liberalism in the sense of the idea held in most western societies that people should have a right to their own viewpoints free from slurs, demonization and violence.

The “indirect bigotry she highlight in the column on the right however are things that generally are considered part of civil discourse. It’s okay to express concern or to debate specific issues. It’s okay to defend free speech and to criticize political correctness. Wynn seems to be arguing that these things should be viewed as just as hateful and inexcusable as yelling slurs, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you rule out questions, debate and free speech, who gets to decide what we can still talk about?

Rowling herself made a similar point, calling this a bad faith argument.

“I see this constantly and 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,'” Rowling responded. “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 as 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.”

In fact, ruling out all of those behaviors on the right conveniently gives an increasingly dogmatic left a free hand to claim that any view they hold is off-limits from discussion. Take for example, the issue of trans women participating in women’s sports. The trans activist view on this issue is certainly not a universally held view among Americans or even professional athletes. In fact, the governing bodies in some sports have already come around to the idea that the activist view doesn’t work. Labeling that decision “indirect bigotry” doesn’t change the fact that making women’s sports distinct makes sense and seeks to respect the rights of women competitors.

Rowling went on to argue that, in her view, the extremism of the left is pushing many people to the right: “I worry very deeply that as the left becomes increasingly puritanical and authoritarian and judgmental, we are pushing swathes of people toward not just to the right, it’s pushing them to the alt-right,” she said.

“Particularly young men when they’re being told that 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 full of poisonous ideas then you’re likely to go there, particularly when you’re young.

“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 going to go?” she said. She added, “In my lifetime we’ve seen such a shift in the left…I was born in the 60s when transgression really was the preserve of the left. You know, when challenging authority and making the dark joke and breaking societal norms was very much the preserve of the left,” she said. “I’ve lived to see the left become incredibly puritanical and rigid.”

As for the idea that her books present a world where young kids make major decisions, Rowling had a simple answer for that. “Those are fantasy books,” she said.

“We are dealing with the real world here,” Rowling said. “We’re dealing with children, in my view, being persuaded that a solution for all distress is lifelong medicalization. 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… 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.”

It is indeed a very different question which makes it important that we not rule out all questions about it as a form of bigotry. You can listen to the entire podcast here.