I've never read a Harry Potter book. I will never read a Harry Potter book. In the first place, they are aimed at a much younger audience than me. In the second place, tales of mop-headed British kids wielding magic aren't my cup of tea (hah). All four of my daughters have read the series; however, as have most of my older grandchildren. With these books, J.K. Rowling got a lot of kids reading books who may otherwise never have realized the joys of the printed page. I admire and respect J.K. Rowling for that. And, she deserves every (penny? farthing? groat? What do the Brits use as their smallest unit of monetary measure, anyway?) of the screw-you money that she has made.
The screw-you money has come in handy in recent years. While I probably differ with Ms. Rowling on a huge range of issues, when she's right, she's right, and her campaign opposing the erasure of girls' and women's sports and private places is, as my British friend would say, spot-on. She's taken plenty of heat for this opposition, and she's bundling it up and tossing it right back in the faces of the unhinged transgender activists who are attacking her. I admire and respect her even more for that.
Last week, with her personal X account, she made a few very good points about the tactics the transgender activists used, and being a writer herself, it's no surprise she recognizes the linguistic tricks attempted.
'He has a point, but he's too blunt.'
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 1, 2025
From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture… https://t.co/DuV4iGkVrl
Here are some highlights.
From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture with devastating consequences to freedom of speech and belief. Huge swathes of liberal media, the arts, academia and publishing have thrown themselves with gusto into the defence of a quasi-religious belief causing provable real world harm, and in their arrogance they've been outraged when people they assumed were part of their In Group have refused to march meekly along in lock step.
The English language is perhaps one of the most slippery in the entire Indo-European language group, but what J.K. Rowling describes here is more linguistic intimidation than prescription, or at least, that's how I see it. Case in point:
Time and again, I've seen and heard well-educated people who consider themselves critical thinkers and bold truth-tellers squirm when put on the spot. 'Well, yes, maybe there's something in what you're saying, but it's hateful/provocative/rude not to use the approved language/pretend people can literally change sex/keep drawing attention to medical malpractice or opportunistic sexual predators. Why can't you be nice? Why won't you pretend? We thought you were one of us! Don't you realise we have sophisticated new words and phrases these days that obviate the necessity of thinking any of this through?'
It's the "new words and phrases" that are what we really have to look out for.
Read More: New: JK Rowling Brings the Thunder on Gender Ideology
J.K. Rowling Is Proof the Transgender Movement Has Lost and Is Fading Away
There are two linguistic tricks that the left always seems to employ. The first is semantic infiltration; the second, the drift of the signifieds.
Semantic infiltration is where one person or organization influences others by forcing them to adopt specific names, terms, phrases, or rhetoric that meet or aid the agenda of the ones doing the infiltrating. This weakens an opponent's argument by wrong-footing them at the very start of the argument; when this happens, the side being infiltrated has already conceded a considerable amount of rhetorical ground. An example of this might be by pushing the screwball pronouns, such as xe, xir, or flippity-floppity-floop, or insisting that we refer to someone as a biological male, as though there were any other kind of male - or by demanding we refer to a male competing in women's sports as a woman, instead of what they are - a dude.
The drift of the signified, taken from the French glissement du signifié sous le signifiant, is a phenomenon wherein a symbol or word stays the same, but what is represented by that symbol or word changes over time. This doesn't always happen deliberately. My favorite example of this is the red flag of the Soviet Union, originally a symbol of anarchic revolution that morphed over the years into a symbol of mindless conformity and repression. Another example might be the reduction of the word "woman," originally and properly defined as an "adult human female," to "whoever claims they are a woman." Another might be the co-opting of "gender" from a linguistic term to a social one, disconnected from genetic sex.
Oh, I can say that with great certainty, by the way, because unlike a certain Supreme Court justice I could name, I am a biologist.
These things are what we contend with in doing rhetorical battle with the left, and being well-armed in these linguistic battles is just as important as beans and bullets in a contest of arms. J.K. Rowling is pretty good in this arena, and it looks like she's slowly beginning to win this fight.
These linguistic tricks are things we should look out for. In any discussion, in any debate, written or spoken, watch for them. Don't let the left get away with them. Insist on defining terms properly, not to suit an agenda - and, yes, that means not doing it ourselves. Insist on precision, veracity, and authenticity of language.
That's how we play this game, and we must not relinquish even an inch of that rhetorical ground.
