JK Rowling called The National 'anti-woman' – here's my response

The National

5 hours ago

She made this claim because we ran an article, and have run many articles previously, describing groups like Sex Matters as "anti-trans".
I would like to take the opportunity to defend this newspaper against Rowling's frankly ridiculous description, and explain why "anti-trans" is indeed suitable language for these activists.
What did JK Rowling say and what was the context?
On Wednesday, our reporter Laura Pollock published a story headlined "Sex Matters considers new legal action against Scottish Government".
In the social copy for the article, we stated: "An anti-trans campaign group is threatening further legal action against the Scottish Government, saying ministers are failing to implement the recent Supreme Court judgment on biological sex in equalities law."
On Wednesday night, Rowling tweeted: "For Women Scotland is a feminist campaigning group. You appear to be an anti-woman newspaper."
It is important to note that we weren't referring to For Women Scotland, but the group Sex Matters, which suggests Rowling didn't actually read the story before trying to smear our publication.
Sex Matters and "anti-trans"
First of all, let's take on the argument that describing Sex Matters as "anti-trans" is unfair, pejorative language. Rowling says it is simply a "feminist campaigning group". Is that the case?
Sex Matters is an organisation which spends most of its time trying to keep trans women out of all women's spaces. Its recent campaigning includes attacking Westminster Council for displaying Pride flags during Pride Month, and arguing that schools should not teach children that people can transition. In its advice for parents on sex and gender in schools, it also states clearly: "Schools should not celebrate festivals such as Transgender Day of Remembrance."
It is very difficult to find examples of Sex Matters campaigning on issues which do not relate to gender identity or matters related to the so-called trans "debate".
To describe Sex Matters as simply a "feminist campaigning group" would be misleading, and fail to take into account its primary function.
The National – an "anti-woman newspaper"?
Myself and the reporters on staff at The National would have once been horrified to learn that JK Rowling had described us as "anti-woman". Today, it reads simply as another Twitter insult dispensed without any grounding in reality. So, here are the facts.
The National is led by a woman, with a female assistant editor.
On staff, we have more women working as reporters than men.
An equal number of men and women write columns for us.
We are part of the Pass the Mic programme, mentoring a number of women of colour in Scotland every year and helping them break into the media.
We have campaigned on issues like buffer zones, pushing the Scottish Government to bring in legislation to protect women from abuse.
For the 2024 International Women's Day, an all-women team produced the newspaper. Everything from the front page to the sports section was written and edited by women. It was the first time this had been done in the Scottish media in my own lifetime.
Some of the team in the office for the International Women's Day edition in 2024 (Image: Colin Mearns) That edition looked at a range of issues affecting women in Scotland and around the world. Those challenges included women in Gaza being forced to have C-sections without anaesthetic, thanks to Israel's systematic destruction of the health service. This is an extremely urgent feminist campaigning issue which I have not heard Rowling or her friends at Sex Matters raise concerns over.
Rowling has chosen to respond to language she did not like (due to its perceived sympathy towards trans people) by launching an intellectually lazy attack on a newspaper, primarily staffed by women, with a strong track record on reporting on feminist issues.
Ultimately, I question the feminist credentials of those who brand the women working at The National "handmaidens" or accuse us of internalised misogyny because the coverage doesn't align neatly with their specific views.
It is also not for JK Rowling to determine what all women think or feel. Nobody, no matter how wealthy or influential, can speak for all of us.
Thankfully, arguments like Rowling's will not convince many people who are not already deep down the anti-trans rabbit hole. But her attempts to control our language are not welcome and should be called out by those who claim to value free speech.
At The National we deal in truth, and will not be cowed by a billionaire trying to control media output to fit her own worldview.