Oxfam needs to stop fixating on ‘terfs’, and focus on helping the poor.
Even if the caricature transphobe hadn’t looked in the least like JK Rowling, Oxfam would still have been utterly in the wrong
It was, of course, a completely innocent mistake. All that Oxfam had meant to do was to create a little animation for social media, demonstrating its support for trans rights. Nothing more.
Imagine its bosses’ horror, therefore, when thousands upon thousands of Twitter users pointed out that Oxfam’s cartoon depiction of an evil, scowling, hate-fuelled transphobe accidentally looked just like JK Rowling.
In response, the charity was quick to delete this part of the animation, and to release a statement insisting that there had been “no intention” to portray “any particular person”.
I for one am happy to take Oxfam at its word. It’s no doubt only the most unfortunate coincidence that the cartoon bigot so closely resembled a widely published photograph of JK Rowling attending the 2018 world premiere of the film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, right down to her hairstyle and outfit.
All the same, though, I hope we don’t get sidetracked by this simple misunderstanding. Because, even if the caricature transphobe hadn’t looked in the least like JK Rowling, Oxfam would still have been utterly in the wrong.
First, because of the cartoon’s implication that anyone who supports women’s rights to single-sex changing rooms and female-only sports is a nasty old hag who loathes the vulnerable. Such a suggestion, I imagine, will have bewildered many of the countless women who either work in or frequent Oxfam’s shops.
Personally, though, I think the main problem with the cartoon is not that it’s offensive. It’s that it’s irrelevant.
Oxfam, after all, was founded to tackle poverty. That is its core mission. It’s why millions support it. So, if its bosses can find the time to release another statement, perhaps they could find the time to answer the following question.
How exactly does attacking “terfs” help to feed starving children?
Transphobia may well be a hurtful prejudice but, as far as I’m aware, it’s not a leading cause of drought, hunger, disease and war. So, when Oxfam rails against people who fail to recognise non-binary pronouns, or who think that only women should be allowed to play women’s rugby, I can’t help feeling that it has strayed somewhat from its central aim.
The cartoon is hardly the sole evidence of this. In March, Oxfam published a guide to “inclusive language”, which advised staff to beware of the words “mother” and “father”. “Parent”, it explained, was “more inclusive”.
(I should stress that the guide wasn’t just about gender. It also decreed that, when expressing support for others, staff should not say they “stand with” them, because this could “alienate people who are unable to stand”. I forget what the staff are meant to say instead. “Sit with”? But that could alienate people with haemorrhoids. It really is a minefield. Although I shouldn’t say that either, because it could alienate people who have had all their limbs blown off, and therefore struggle to do anything.)
At any rate, it’s hard to avoid the impression that Oxfam has become so obsessed with transphobia that it has forgotten that misogyny is a form of prejudice, too. Then again, you can see how that might have happened. Each generation of progressive activists needs its own oppressed group to champion. So perhaps, as oppressed groups go, women have simply fallen out of fashion. They’re old hat. Yesterday’s news. And anyway, women have already got plenty of rights. Why can’t they stop being so selfish, and refusing to share them round?
Still, whatever has caused Oxfam to lose its way, I think it’s time it stopped fixating on gender theory, and focused entirely on helping the poor. Yes, some women in this country may hold frightfully unfashionable opinions – but their donations count just as much as anyone else’s.
Theoretically, I suppose, it’s possible that a starving child in Burkina Faso could shout: “No! I refuse to accept any food that may have been paid for by someone who believes that biological males should not be allowed to enter the women’s Olympic weightlifting!” On the whole, though, I think it’s unlikely. DT.
