Few have never heard of “The Boy Who Lived,” but many have permanently renounced its franchise altogether. Die-hard fans of the Harry Potter series felt the tumult of J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans views, which made headlines in 2020 after the author was documented liking and following anti-trans sentiments online.
When the backlash ensued, Rowling set the record straight in a 3,600-word essay published on her website, refuting the accusations of transphobia and suggesting that the criticism against her has been largely misogynistic. Since then, she has continued to support anti-trans legislation and has even created an organization dedicated to funding legal cases filed by cis women to exclude trans women from obtaining equal rights.
READ: The hypersexualization of Katseye
Harry Potter alums speak out
Needless to say, Rowling has faced persistent public scrutiny over her views, and even prompted the original main cast of the Harry Potter series—Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint—to denounce their association with her and pledge their solidarity with trans people.
Following the announcement of a new television adaptation, as well as a Broadway production of Harry Potter, new cast members have found themselves implicated in Rowling’s anti-trans rampage.
Actors who were previously embraced by the queer community found themselves at odds with once-loyal fans, as they were announced as part of the productions.
Allies in hot water
Nicholas Hoult, who himself is not queer, has garnered a largely LGBTQIA+ fanbase following his role in Yorgos Lanthimos’ beloved queer film “The Favourite.”
Queer devotion is selectively bestowed upon a small minority of cis straight men whose platform and talent have gained the trust of the gay community. But when Hoult was announced as a cast member of the second season of the HBO “Harry Potter” adaptation, fans quickly stripped him of his prime distinction.
READ: ‘Life After You’ finds friendship across generations of women
Hoult later pulled out of the series, citing scheduling conflicts, and was replaced by Kit Harington, but the damage had been done—his previous outspoken support for the queer community rendered moot by his failure to live up to his words.
Hoult is not the only one to come under fire for his association with the openly transphobic author. Grint, who was only 11 years old in the first of eight “Harry Potter” films, is reportedly reprising his role as Ron Weasley in the Broadway production of “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.”
The conversation under his announcement on Instagram has indicated a mixed reaction—a sharp criticism being one of the top comments. “When money speaks louder than principles…” it reads.
His participation in the show comes after he declared his support for the trans community in response to Rowling’s bigoted stance, stating to The Times in 2020: “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people, and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either [Rowling] or I.”
The onslaught of anti-trans terrorism
Trans people have been the target of manufactured right-wing hysteria for a long time. Members of the Republican Party have endlessly exerted themselves trying to frame trans people as a fundamental threat to society, while frantically denying trans existence as a historical fact.
The entertainment industry is not the only landscape that has been affected by the exploitation of anti-trans hysteria. Just recently, the WNBA was invaded by former NBA players and current attention-seekers, Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White—both taking advantage of the traction around trans discourse to catapult their pathetic careers as political figures.
READ: The current trans athlete debate in the WNBA is ridiculous
Rowling’s particular brand of bigotry is arguably not rooted in the kind of misogyny demonstrated by Freedom and White. She’s what trans-allied people call a TERF (trans exclusive radical feminist).
Rowling’s logical fallacies
The author rejected this title in her lengthy essay and denied the allegations of transphobia, sharing her experience of gender-based violence as a basis for her beliefs. While she acknowledges the fear and precarity that characterizes the lives of one of our most vulnerable communities, she reinforces the arguments that continue to make the world treacherous for trans individuals.
Stripping trans people of their rights only exacerbates the disparity between cis men and all gender minorities, enabling the very violence Rowling aims to protect women from.
“I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman… then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth,” she writes.
Rowling argues that male attackers will falsely identify as trans in order to commit violence against women, which is an overused argument that falls flat for two separate but adjacent reasons: (1) violence against women has never needed such pretenses as it continues to happen regardless of transness, and (2) it operates under the assumption that violence occurs in a vacuum, as if it is not prompted or perpetuated by gender inequality.
In essence, her argument fails because it is grounded in a dated and simplistic notion—that violence against women happens merely as a result of men’s uncontrollable lust, and not as a perverted demonstration of male power and authority.
Stripping trans people of their rights only exacerbates the disparity between cis men and all gender minorities, enabling the very violence Rowling aims to protect women from.
So what does trans solidarity actually entail?
At this point, Rowling’s contribution to trans discourse can no longer be disguised as generative. She actively uses her resources to squander trans rights and threaten the lives of trans individuals. Participating in any project that lines her pockets can no longer be seen as a passive decision.
Solidarity may have become a buzzword of sorts, but its principle is simple and lasting: “I may not share in your experience, but I am a part of the struggle.” Solidarity invokes differentiation yet entanglement; inculpability yet responsibility.
Meaningful allyship means being uncooperative with those who put marginalized people at risk. Solidarity may have become a buzzword of sorts, but its principle is simple and lasting: “I may not share in your experience, but I am a part of the struggle.”
Solidarity invokes differentiation yet entanglement; inculpability yet responsibility. It’s not something you can opt out of when it suddenly becomes lucrative in your career.
