(This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as one can interpret quite a lot of metaphor into a book whose author may not have intended any of it, and I intentionally included some things that I think make very weak arguments, but no weaker than the genderist's 'arguments' for why Harry Potter has a pro-trans message ...)

The Anti-Transgender-Ideology Message of Lord of the Rings

We all know, of course, that Tolkien was Catholic and would therefore, have opposed gender ideology by default.

Pointing this out is not the goal of this essay. Rather, what the author intends to show is that even if we knew nothing about Tolkien’s opinions and beliefs, Lord of the Rings would speak for itself.

This shall be done following, roughly, the chronological order in which the events occur in the books.

Firstly, names.

It is well known to anyone well-read on the matter that gender ideology postulates that deadnaming, i.e. calling someone by a name given to them in the past, is a sin, on par with physical violence.

Early on in the books, at Bilbo’s birthday party, he addresses a group of his guests, whose last name is „Proudfoot“ as „Proudfoots“, when they prefer to be called „Proudfeet“.

They respond by calling out the name they prefer, and the party continues without Bilbo getting cancelled.

This is by no means the only case in which someone is called by a name they are not using at the moment.

Frodo goes by an alias in Bree, Gandalf is called many different names by different people, and Aragorn goes by so many names I am not even sure I can recall all of them.

Not once does anyone get severely punished for „deadnaming“ any of those characters, which is remarkable, since Gandalf certainly has the power to punish anyone as he sees fit. (As does Aragorn, at the end of the books.)

Secondly, gender ideology postulates that „People are who they say they are“.

The hobbits arrive in Bree and meet a mysterious stranger named ‚Strider‘ who presumes to give them safety advice and demands to speak to them in private.

While Strider does seem to have a certain expectation that they ought to trust him, he is but a fallible human.

Gandalf, who is a wizard and pretty much the author’s voice, very obviously does not think that the hobbits ought to trust Strider on his word alone, and has gone so far as to leave a letter with the landlord of the Prancing Pony that instructs Frodo how to test Strider’s identity.

This is repeated at Rivendell, where Strider/Aragorn produces the broken sword as proof of the identity he claims. At this point, he has, of course, already proven his identity to the hobbits – while they lack the background knowledge that ‚the hands of the king are the hands of a healer‘, he has healed Frodo’s wound with athelas, a herb strongly suggested to have healing power only in the hands of the true king.

Even the fact that Aragorn was fostered by Elrond, who is therefore well aware of his true identity, does not render tangible proof unnecessary.

One can easily see how Tolkien’s heroic characters would never demand that women let a male into their private spaces without first being given tangible proof that he is indeed a woman.

(Later on, Éowyn proves that she indeed, is no man, by killing the Witchking of Angmar. This indicates that sex is a provable fact in Middle Earth. You cannot fulfill a prophecy with a social construct.)

Thirdly, symbolism.

There, we have Gandalf’s encounter with Saruman, who turned from Saruman the White into Saruman of the Many Colours. Many colours. Rainbow Flag. It could hardly be more obvious. Saruman does not explicitly say that he includes pink and pastel blue in „many colours“, but we can assume this to be the case.

Fourth; censorship.

Gender ideology loves censorship. Saruman does, too. He certainly would have liked to keep Gandalf imprisoned, to keep the news of his having turned traitor under wraps, but some giant eagles thwart this plan.

Giant eagles that are consistently portrayed to be a force for good.

Fifth: Cancelling.

Gender ideology postulates that one has to immediately cut contact with any people who have been declared enemies, and is not allowed to talk to them ever again.

No one in LotR does this.

Gimli and Legolas set out on a quest together, despite their people being, if not enemies, so at least unfriendly with each other.

Even more amazing; Boromir joins the quest despite it being led by Aragorn, who is quite obviously angling for his (future) job.

When Gimli and Legolas become friends, none of them talk about cutting ties with the one of their fathers who is ‚in the wrong‘.

Sixths: Violence against those who cannot defend themselves.

Gender ideology frequently calls for murdering „Terfs“, aka feminists, most of whom are female.

One might think that there is a lot of murder in LotR, but one would be wrong. There is a lot of death on the battlefield, but any instance of violence that is even just similar to murder is very much frowned on – Gollum only survives until the end of the story because Gandalf reminded Frodo that murder is wrong, no matter how many you might think someone deserves death.

None of the heroic characters in Lord of the Rings ever kill someone who is weaker than them – or even only just as strong.

Likewise, there is little, if any, violence against anyone weaker than the one dishing out the violence; with one exception: Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo through threats of violence.

Which is very clearly portrayed as wrong.

Seventh: Hobbits as symbol for women

Hobbits are smaller, weaker and more peaceful than Men. (And also count as non-men when killing the Witchking of Angmar)

The only thing in which they are superior to Men is their moral superiority, as shown in the ability of pretty much every average hobbit to withstand the Ring. (There are hobbits, such as Gollum, who cannot, and Men, such as Faramir, who can withstand the Ring’s corruption, but they are all exceptional in their respective groups; Gollum moreso than Faramir.)

The Shire is also strongly associated with fertility, being the only place in Middle Earth that is explicitly shown to have agriculture. Agriculture is implied in other realms, as people must eat, but the only gardening shown is in the Shire.

Now, let us examine how hobbits are treated in Lord of the Rings.

They get hobbit-sized rooms in the Prancing Pony, the physical reality of them being shorter is acknowledged and accommodated for. No one denies the biological differences between the two races and expects them to make do with Man-sized furniture.

This is repeated during the whole journey of the Fellowship, but most importantly on Caradhras – Aragorn and Boromir carry the hobbits, without the hobbits even asking; in stark contrast to modern males who worship gender ideology and complain that they are expected to do the heavy lifting because of their stronger bodies.

Only villainous Men ever physically attack hobbits; with the notable exception of Boromir, who just about manages to redeem himself from such a vile deed. (And who, technically, does not get around to actually harming Frodo. The intent was enough.)

After he events of the books, Aragorn bans Men, by law, from entering the Shire and does not break this law himself!

If Estel/Strider/Aragorn/Elessar aka the true King of Gondor were a modern head of state, we can deduce from this, he would protect women only spaces.