Jake Graf doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
The British writer, director, actor and activist has helped raise the profile of transgender people within the UK and abroad through his work behind the camera on the films Chance and Dusk, as well as with his roles in high-profile films like Colette, where he played a cisgender man.
Alongside his wife, army engineer Hannah Winterbourne–the highest-ranking transgender officer in the UK armed forces–Graf has worked to change attitudes toward transgender people on both sides of the Atlantic. This year, he and Hannah also announced they are expecting their first child together through surrogacy.
On the heels of JK Rowling’s derisive comments about transgender people, Queerty reached out to Graf for his response to her perplexing and painful words, which only added to the hostility trans people in the UK and beyond are experiencing.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
I’ve always thought of Ms. Rowling as a friend to the queer community, so I find her comments stunning.
I think we were all a little surprised that JK came out in support of Maya Forstater, a woman deemed by a judge to have absolutist views that she would happily assert regardless of it creating an intimidating, degrading and hostile work environment. It was that which resulted in Ms. Forstater’s contract not being renewed, as opposed to her stating that ‘sex is real’, as was widely misrepresented by JK amongst others.
Related: The mysterious case of J.K. Rowling & her transphobic Twitter history
JK’s tweet in support of a transphobe would have been hurtful from anyone, but the community felt an overwhelming sense of disappointment and betrayal because those words came from a writer whose characters fight for those who are different and strive for an equal society. That JK deemed it acceptable to effectively attack and vilify the most vulnerable section of the LGBTQ community felt cruel and irresponsible. Given that trans women are so frequently murdered simply for being themselves, the mind boggles that anyone with such a powerful voice would seek to create an environment in which that problem is exacerbated.
My wife was a much bigger fan of JK’s than me, having read Harry Potter throughout her childhood. As a transwoman, she had found a much-needed sense of escapism when immersed in the world of Hogwarts. It was heartbreaking to see her so upset and confused at last week’s tweet, as she had long anticipated the day when she could share that experience with her own children, a desire which now feels marred for her. For women like Hannah, it is just one more blow to an already bruised and battered sense of self.
Does this hurt her brand or image as an author?
Her image within the LGBTQ community has certainly suffered. I think many looked up to her as a supporter and ally, someone who sought to encourage our children and young folk to be accepting and understanding of difference in all its many forms. However, it is unlikely that our hurt will be felt outside of the LGBTQ sphere. Unfortunately it seems that JK and the Harry Potter franchise have a level of popularity that makes them beyond reproach.
Should Warner Bros. or her other Hollywood associates denounce her words? How should they react?
I would hope that there is enough kindness, acceptance and support within Hollywood that many will take issue with her views, however the ‘debate’ around trans people’s existence, rights and safety remains one of the last bastions of bigotry seemingly acceptable within civilized society. We have already seen a number of individuals willing to speak out against JK, but I think that for many it is a battle from which they would rather maintain a distance.
This year has seen a number of high profile Brits like Rowling (Dame Edna also comes to mind) making transphobic comments. I’m aware of the ugly protests at London Pride last year.
Three years ago, there were proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, the piece of legislation that governs the mechanism by which someone legally changes gender in the UK.
This was initially a positive step for transgender people in the UK, but quickly led to a small minority of anti-trans individuals waging a war against us, with the support of media outlets that we could only dream of. This started a campaign of misinformation and lies which has been steadily growing in volume, reaching fever pitch over the last two years. Trans children, charities and families all suddenly found themselves in the firing line. That revitalized wave of transphobia, combined with the divisive climate around Brexit and the lurch towards populism have created a truly toxic environment for transgender people in the UK which shows no signs of letting up.
Creamsicle
She didn’t even tweet about it. She liked some anti-trans-women tweets. Doesn’t that fall into the Big Brother is Watching You territory of social media that progressives also criticize?
I guess it’s only okay if it’s done in pursuit of Cancel Culture and attempts to punch up at someone successful. Even if it does meaning tearing down a popular LGB ally.
OzJosh
Don’t worry, nobody has.
renzinthewoods
What she did was oversimplify and water down the situation in showing support of a highly vocal anti trans individual. I personally think the person who deserves to be the focus of much of the anger is the woman who’s contract wasn’t renewed. JK was quite incorrect though…she was not fired and she did not merely state “sex is real.”
renzinthewoods
Thanks for the heads up. Didn’t realize this was about one of THEM…the ones who declare themselves gender non binary and demand to be referred to as “they” and “them” (which defies logic). Here’s what I’ve never understood about the pronoun obsession. We NEVER use he, she or they when speaking directly to a person. We use you, i and we…all gender neutral. We only use he or she when we are discussing someone else in the third person. We should aspire to be respectful when addressing an individual…fine. But how I choose to describe another individual is up to me when I’m merely talking about someone. If I think some cisgender guy is acting like a diva and say, What’s up with HER? I’m using gender fluid language to be ironic. So what?