The Harry Potter trailer for its new series on HBO Max was released today. While some people (including me), were happy, other’s were saying that we are just making J.K. Rowling rich or we’re adding to her wealth to fund anti-trans rights. (Insert eye roll.)
Whether you’re on Facebook, or X or Threads, a common line online is that if you still enjoy Harry Potter or call yourself a “Potterhead,” you’re tacitly supporting J.K. Rowling’s trans‑exclusionary politics. Articles and hot‑takes frame her donations to groups like For Women Scotland and the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund as proof that anyone who engages with her work is complicit in anti‑trans harm. That’s not only oversimplified; it’s also unfair to fans who love the franchise for its own merits, not for whatever Rowling does with the money it earns.
The truth is: you can love Harry Potter, love Rowling’s writing, and still strongly disagree with whatever she believes in.
What Rowling’s Donations Are (And What They Are Not)
Rowling has publicly donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland (FWS), an organization that challenged how the word “woman” is defined under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The case reached the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled that trans women are not automatically included as “women” under that specific law. The decision was limited to that statute and did not broadly redefine gender recognition law across the UK.
Rowling has also announced the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, funded from her personal wealth, to support individuals and groups advocating for what she describes as “women’s sex-based rights” in areas such as workplaces, public life, and single-sex spaces. In practice, this means helping fund legal cases that aim to reinforce or clarify laws that define “sex” as biological sex, often with the goal of setting legal precedents that influence how policies are applied in real-world settings. Critics argue that these efforts can limit trans inclusion, while supporters maintain that they are necessary to protect rights specifically tied to biological sex.
In addition, she helped establish Beira’s Place, a rape crisis center in Edinburgh that provides services to women. The center has been reported to exclude trans women from both services and employment, which has been a major point of criticism.
What is factual:
- Rowling has financially supported organizations and initiatives focused on sex-based legal definitions and women-only spaces.
- These efforts have included legal challenges and funding structures that affect how “woman” is interpreted in certain legal contexts.
- Some of these positions and policies exclude trans women (because they are biologically men), which has led to public controversy.
What is interpretation (but widely argued):
- Supporters argue these efforts are about protecting sex-based rights, not targeting trans people.
- Critics, including LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and media outlets, view these actions as harmful to trans rights because they may contribute to limiting legal recognition or access to certain spaces.
Holding J.K. Rowling accountable for her pattern of giving isn’t about guilt by association—it’s about recognizing that who she chooses to fund, and the language she uses, can influence ongoing debates around how trans people are treated in law, healthcare, and public life.
But that doesn’t mean Potterheads are signing on to those consequences. Supporting Harry Potter—books, films, fandom, re‑reads of Goblet of Fire—is not the same as funding a Supreme Court case or bankrolling a sex‑based‑rights‑only legal fund. You can love the story and the magic, admire her writing, and still be clear-eyed about the fact that her donations are not for trans rights; they’re for narrowing them.
Rowling’s choices are hers. Our responsibility is to make our own: to enjoy the art, support causes that matter to us, and refuse to let anyone guilt‑trip us into thinking that liking Harry Potter means we’re okay with turning vulnerable people into legal test cases.
Calling people ‘transphobic’ just because they still love Harry Potter is too easy and too reductive. No one magically becomes an anti‑trans crusader by watching a movie or buying a second‑hand book. If you love the series, that doesn’t mean you agree with Rowling’s politics; it just means you love the story. You can keep that magic in your life and still stand firmly against transphobia in your own words and actions.
Supporting a franchise is not the same as signing a petition or funding a legal‑activist fund. Guess, I’ll write a separate post about this so it’s all clear to us.
“You’re Supporting Her Transphobia” Is a Bad Argument
Some corners of the internet treat Rowling’s wealth as collectively “dirty” because she earns so much from Harry Potter. The logic goes: you watch the films, the studio makes money, she profits, so you’re helping fuel her anti‑trans projects.
Even if that math were clean, it would still be a dangerously slippery way to think about fandom and responsibility. Under that logic:
- Anyone who reads a novel by a right‑leaning author
- Anyone who streams a filmmaker with controversial opinions
- Anyone who re‑listens to music from an artist with a messy past
…would suddenly be “endorsing” their politics. Culture would collapse into a purity test.
Yes, you can:
- Love the magic, the world‑building, the characters, and the emotional arcs of Harry Potter
- Admire her writing style and storytelling
- Still think she is wrong about trans rights
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
Seriously, Potterheads Are Not Responsible for What She Does
Rowling is a billionaire. She can choose what charities to fund, what legal causes to back, and how to spend her Harry Potter‑earned money. That autonomy is part of what freedom means. Also, even if you burn the books, stop watching the movies, or refuse to watch the new series, she still remains a billionaire and can donate to whatever she wants. It also means the moral weight of the choices she makes is on her, not on the average fan.
If she wanted to devote her fortune to, say, trans‑inclusive women’s shelters or to LGBTQ+ youth housing, she could. If she wanted to fund a pro‑trans legal fund instead of a sex‑based‑rights fund, she could. None of that is happening because of you hitting “play” on a movie or re‑reading a book.
Framing Potterheads as “complicit” in her politics is a kind of moral laundering by guilt‑by‑association. It assumes that because some people still love the franchise, they must be on board with everything she stands for, which is not how art or ethics work.
Separating the Art from the Artist
Don’t let the haters stop you. You can still:
- Enjoy the art she created before her public trans‑related comments.
- Admire her storytelling and the way she built a world that meant something to millions. I love the way she writes, too!
- You can also say: “What she’s doing with her money and her platform now is harmful to trans people, and I disagree with it.”
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s nuance.
Many fans have already done exactly this: they keep re‑reading the books, they still love the movies, and they also support trans‑inclusive organizations, speak up for trans friends, or donate to LGBTQ+ causes. That mix of appreciation + critique is how most people actually relate to culture in the real world.
A Message to Fellow Potterheads
If you’re someone who still loves Harry Potter, you don’t need to feel guilty for it. Your fandom does not obligate you to defend Rowling’s politics. Just do this:
- Keep smiling when you hear the opening notes of the Philosopher’s Stone score
- Still feel chills when you read the line “After all this time…” about Snape’s love for Lily
- Also say clearly: “I disagree with her on trans rights, and I support trans people.”
You don’t have to erase your love for the wizarding world to take a stand against harm. You can love the story and reject the bigotry.
Calling people “transphobic” just because they still enjoy Harry Potter is a lazy way of shutting down conversation. It flattens complex fans into caricatures and makes it harder to actually discuss how artists’ power, money, and speech intersect with real‑world harm.
It’s fair to examine J.K. Rowling’s funding choices and the impact they may have on trans-related issues. But it’s also important to stop treating fans as if their love for Harry Potter is a reflection of her views.
Love the books. Love the magic. And when you’re ready, channel some of that same passion into supporting whatever causes you want – because that’s where your real power lies, not in your streaming habits.