Despite all the power her cultural influence and financial lobbying buy her, it’s comforting to know that J.K. Rowling is powerless to social media. Even $1 billion and the complete and total financial freedom to do whatever she wants with her life isn’t enough to deter Rowling’s chronic posting habit. Like the rest of us, she has probably found herself closing an app, only to have the mortifying reflex to open the very same app one second later. Her high screen time percentage is the great equalizer, making her as much of a cartoon super villain as she is a dangerous and out-of-touch fearmonger.
This past week, Rowling gleefully put both these facets of her personality on full display. On Wednesday, the U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the definition of a “woman” in the eyes of U.K. law, according to the 2010 Equality Act, does not include transgender women. The ruling states that sex is binary, and that a “woman” is someone whose biological sex aligns with that definition. The decision was made after a long push from For Women Scotland, an anti-trans group that boasts Rowling as one of its most famous financial backers.
Rowling is playing edgelord from the comfort of a life so far removed from reality that the truth is just a speck in the distance. After years spent tarnishing her brand with rampant trans-exclusionary takes, she’s assured that her writing won’t define her legacy; her flagrant cowardice will.
After the ruling, Rowling sprinted to social media as fast as her thumbs could fiddle. Gloating, she poured herself a drink and lit up a cigar. “I love it when a plan comes together,” she posted on X, alongside a photo of herself taking a drag. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision resulted in a throng of protests in London’s Parliament Square, fearing that the ruling could have a cataclysmic ripple effect on trans rights throughout the U.K. and embolden those like Rowling who seek to have those rights vanquished. While an entire subsection of the U.K. population worried about their equal rights being stripped away by antiquated thinking and baseless conspiracy theories, Rowling sat back with a smirk. She may as well have been pictured like Dr. Evil, stroking a white Persian cat, announcing her plot for world domination.
But no matter how much money you have, you can’t dominate the world if you’re not out in it. In her photo, Rowling is notably posted up on a yacht or some beach resort, enjoying the spoils of her wealth and a strong 5G signal from her cellular provider. She’s not joining the cheering members of For Women Scotland and the other anti-trans voices in person, she’s playing edgelord from the comfort of a life so far removed from reality that the truth is just a speck in the distance. After years spent tarnishing her brand with rampant trans-exclusionary takes, Rowling has assured that her writing won’t define her legacy; her flagrant cowardice will.
Despite what she might say, Rowling isn’t for anyone, especially not women, whom she claims to champion; she’s for herself. The author of a beloved book series about coming together to fight the rise of fascism has written herself into the story as a real-life villain. No matter how much fans try to separate the art from the artist, Rowling and “Harry Potter” are inextricably linked forever. And with the “Hogwarts Legacy” video game and Max’s upcoming “Harry Potter” series trying to breathe new life into the franchise, it’s time for even diehard Potterheads to put their money where their mouths are and leave Rowling’s wizarding world behind for good.
J. K. Rowling attends the Broadway Opening Day performance of ‘Harry Potter and the Cursed Child Parts One and Two’ at The Lyric Theatre on April 22, 2018 in New York City. (Walter McBride/WireImage/Getty Images)Rowling and Warner Bros., which owns the rights to the “Harry Potter” movies and upcoming series, while Rowling maintains the character rights (and makes money from any licensing deal, no matter how small or savory), are counting on the public’s continued curiosity. The studio is putting a mountain of cash into the series, and like any business, they’re eager for a return on their investment. When the subject of Rowling’s anti-trans remarks came up at a press conference in November, HBO chief Casey Bloys said that Rowling was “very involved” with finding the right director and writer for the series. A statement from an HBO spokesperson claimed that the show would benefit from Rowling’s involvement and that Rowling has the right to her beliefs.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
While that may be true, the statement from HBO goes on to say: “We are proud to once again tell the story of ‘Harry Potter’ — the heartwarming books that speak to power, friendship, resolve and acceptance.” Note the last word in that sentence, and you’ll spot the dissonance between HBO’s statement and the reality of the situation. Rowling’s role in the show’s production is directly tied to its existence and vice versa, whether the network likes it or not. She’s even made time for posts about it amid the seemingly endless barrage of transphobic garbage. If Rowling is as involved as she and HBO say she is, and if she’s the rights holder making decisions in terms of characters, it’s not entirely unfair to wonder if any of Rowling’s views could bleed into the show somehow. Suppose we’re analyzing how narratives are proliferated into the world. In that case, I’d say it’s perfectly reasonable to be wary of anyone who jumps at an open casting call posted to Rowling’s timeline, sandwiched between anti-trans hate speech.
This reboot is also precisely what Rowling wants. The author has already publicly distanced herself from Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson — the stars from the original “Harry Potter” films — after Radcliffe and Watson publicly condemned Rowling’s views. In March, Rowling doubled down, responding to a prompt post on X asking, “Which actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?” Rowling quoted the post, saying, “Three guesses,” before adding, “Sorry, but that was irresistible.” Her post also included three crying laughing emojis, parroting the delight she takes in using her platform to belittle those who believe trans people deserve equal rights that ascribe to their identity. It was a thinly veiled dig at Radcliffe, Watson and Grint, who Rowling seems to believe ruined her work.
Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint in “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (Warner Bros.)With this perspective in mind, is it off-base to think Rowling is trying to remake “Harry Potter” from the ground up, not just bring the series to a new generation? If the “Harry Potter” movies of the past are marked with some progressiveness Rowling doesn’t agree with, the reboot series stands in total opposition. It will be aligned with current-day Rowling and all of the harm she’s caused with her words, her money and her unwillingness to listen to anyone but herself. Continuing to feed the brand by buying the books, watching the show and the movies, or purchasing licensed merchandise signals a demand for more content to Warner Bros. and any company that wants to license Rowling’s characters. The public’s purchasing power may not directly line Rowling’s pockets, but it has an impact nonetheless. Rowling’s fortune doesn’t just buy her cigars and an endless supply of Aperol to sip seaside, it funds the legal campaigns of conservative lobbyists who have the power to decimate protections for trans people, not just in the U.K., but worldwide.
This large movement started relatively small, with an essay Rowling published on her website in the summer of 2020 (at the height of the pandemic, because apparently she had nothing better to do). In the piece, Rowling repeated harmful narratives that trans rights were eroding women’s public safety, taking the issue to the restroom, as so many often do. According to Rowling and those who subscribe to this belief, trans women pose a threat to safety in restrooms. They believe allowing trans women to use bathrooms that align with their identity, or increasing the number of all-gender bathrooms, opens the door for any man to walk into a women’s bathroom and assault someone. Given the wealth of researched and published statistics saying otherwise, this belief is nothing more than anti-trans fearmongering. Studies have shown that trans teens are more likely to face assault with restricted bathroom access, and more cisgender women have reported harassment in public restrooms by those suspicious of their gender identity.
If Rowling can look at a crowd of people who fear for the future of their lives and safety, and respond with disrespect and impudence, she is no better than any of the fascist facsimiles she wrote into “Harry Potter.”
Despite the evidence contrary to Rowling’s narrative, she’s made a frightening amount of headway in the last five years. Until last week, the 2010 Equality Act protected trans women who held gender recognition certificates. Now, thanks to For Women Scotland, Rowling’s financial contributions to their cause and the author’s innumerable posts on X, the U.K. has rolled back protections for its trans population.
Rowling hit a new level of despicable with her post-ruling, cigar-smoking, drink-chugging photo. She was not just prideful; she was bragging. And she continued to stir the pot with her celebration over the weekend.
In the aftermath of the ruling, Rowling screenshotted the post of one of her favorite targets, trans activist India Willoughby. Willoughby praised the protestors in Parliament Square, expressing her happiness seeing “over 1,000 people” in attendance. In response, Rowling added, “Only 1,000? #disappointed.” Rowling’s flippancy toward the situation is, frankly, disgusting regardless of her views. If Rowling can look at a crowd of people who fear for the future of their lives and safety, and respond with disrespect and impudence, she is no better than any of the fascist facsimiles she wrote into “Harry Potter.” It’s become beyond clear that what made Rowling’s writing so captivating and intense was not just that she was adept at creating a fantasy world, but that she sympathized enough with the darkest depths of it that she could write about it in a way that felt true. After a runaway success with fiction, she’s exploring her power to mold reality to her advantage, too. And she’ll use the money spent by “Harry Potter” holdouts — even the ones who patently disagree with her but want to partake in the fandom — to do it.
“Harry Potter” goblins in the original Gringotts Wizarding Bank set at Warner Bros (Jeff Spicer/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Studio Tour London). In a time when we’re all seeking comfort in any way we can get it, it’s easy to forget that every action has a consequence. It can be tempting to prioritize our joy, and for many people, that joy translates to indulging in the “Harry Potter” fandom. The books, films and merch have played a pivotal role in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. That’s no small feat, just like it’s no small request to ask people to reduce the franchise’s role in their lives, or give it up altogether. But Rowling’s series was already imperfect long before she went public with her anti-trans bigotry: her writing of mixed-race and non-white characters is clunky to say the least; the goblin characters are obvious and offensive Jewish stereotypes; and there’s an Asian character named Cho Chang — and that’s just scratching the surface.
Nostalgia is a powerful drug, one that makes it all the more difficult to retire something people have loved for so long. But “Harry Potter” has transcended its themes of anti-fascism, equality and community. Rowling’s views haven’t just marked the property, they’ve stained it. Putting money toward the series in any way is a moral issue, one that dictates whether or not those wielding the cash care enough about the trans people hurt by Rowling’s views to spend the money on something else. We can’t stop a television studio from trying to revive a franchise, but we can withhold our time and money wherever and whenever possible.
Rowling is exactly the type of person who is so resistant to change and progress that she’s turned her entire life into a fight against those two things. Ironically, that’s a huge change in itself: children’s book author to social media-obsessed transphobe. Perhaps Rowling isn’t so afraid of change after all, but rather fearful of owning up to the inherent insignificance of being one person in a world that treats all humans equally. She’s petrified of feeling small, like all bullies are, so she’s agreed to remake her most famous (and only well-reviewed) work for the money and political influence it might buy her. Rowling’s fight is not about what’s right for women, it’s about what’s right for her. Her influence seems intimidating, but she is a sore loser who would stomp her feet if she didn’t get her way (as all people who talk a big game online are). Now that the future of her franchise is at stake, the power diverts back to all of us. We have the choice to avoid anything and everything related to Rowling and her work, to fight her financial lobbying with our monetary boycotts. Rowling is playing a long game, but she hasn’t won yet. It’s our move next.
Read more
about how J.K. Rowling fell this far
