When J.K. Rowling first went public in June 2020 about her belief that transgender women are men and transgender men are women, many of the stars of the “Harry Potter” and “Fantastic Beasts” movies — including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Eddie Redmayne — immediately spoke out in support of trans and nonbinary rights and identity. Two of the biggest Harry Potter fan communities, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, denounced Rowling’s views and severed ties with the author’s future projects. And Warner Bros. released a carefully worded statement that “a diverse and inclusive culture has never been more important to our company and to our audiences around the world” — which, while not mentioning Rowling or trans and nonbinary people, did at least put some rhetorical distance between the studio and the creative force behind one of its most enduring and lucrative franchises.
Four years later, the landscape looks quite different. Under new leadership, Warner Bros. Discovery has aggressively expanded the reach of Rowling’s Wizarding World, centered on HBO’s impending revival of Rowling’s book series as a longform TV show, led by showrunner Francesca Gardiner and director Mark Mylod, both alums of “Succession.” HBO chief Casey Bloys told reporters at a press event on Nov. 12 that Rowling was “very, very involved in the process selecting the writer and the director,” and her anti-trans statements “haven’t affected the casting or hiring of writers or productions staff” for the show. And a spokesperson for the network said in a statement to Variety that its parent company has “been working with J.K. Rowling and in the Harry Potter business for over 20 years” and “her contribution has been invaluable.”
“We are proud to once again tell the story of Harry Potter — the heartwarming books that speak to power of friendship, resolve and acceptance,” the statement continued. “J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” (A rep for Mylod referred Variety to HBO; a rep for Gardiner did not respond to a request for comment.)
Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona. On Sept. 10, she posted the U.K. open casting call for the roles of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley to her 14.2 million followers on X. That was an exception: Over the next two months, Rowling posted or reposted more than 200 times (excluding replies) about trans-related issues to support her conviction, as she posted on Oct. 7, that gender identity “is defined by little more than a person’s subjective feelings, or (more accurately) their claim to feel those feelings.” Within the same time frame, she posted or reposted about Harry Potter just eight more times, including one in which she said she “pulled something laughing” at a fan expressing their “immeasurable” disappointment that Rowling was, in her words, “very involved” with the “Potter” series. (Through a spokesperson, Rowling declined to comment for this story.)
The industry has never quite faced a scenario in which the sole creator of a beloved, multibillion-dollar global franchise has plunged so unabashedly into one of the culture’s most contentious social issues. She’s effectively made herself toxic to many within the core fandom, whose devotion began 25 years ago when they were children and has sustained the franchise long after the books and the film series concluded. It’s placed those fans in a vexing dilemma: How can they engage with the new show, or any other iteration of the franchise, if they vehemently disagree with Rowling’s views on gender identity?
Melissa Anelli, author of “Harry, a History” and webmistress of The Leaky Cauldron, notes that the site hasn’t updated its popular podcast PotterCast since March 2023. “Every time we sit down to have a fun conversation about Harry Potter, the conversation becomes angry and depressing, and so we end up not publishing,” she says. “It’s made it less pure and exciting and fun the way it used to be. All of that now has this layer of, ‘Right, but the person at the center of it all believes a certain faction of the population isn’t real.’”
“The fandom of 10 years ago was like a utopia,” says Kat Miller, creative director of MuggleNet and coauthor of “The Unofficial Harry Potter Companion.” The emphasis in the “Harry Potter” books and films on ideals of equality and inclusivity attracted a core fanbase — which Miller describes as “majority women, and very, very, very queer” — who were unified in their passion for a story that had reached a rousing and deeply satisfying conclusion. Today, Miller says, the fanbase “definitely has fractured, and I think that is mostly because of her. There are just too many political things that are interfering with the enthusiasm being at 100%.”
Rowling’s views have indeed invoked sharp words of support as well as dissent; while Radcliffe has continued to express how “deeply sad” the author’s comments on trans issues have made him, “Potter” stars Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter and Jim Broadbent have spoken out in her defense, and replies to her on X are filled with words of encouragement. For her part, Rowling has affirmed that she’s unconcerned about her gender activism affecting her legacy, and in April, she made clear that she would not forgive any creative collaborators who have spoken out in opposition to her beliefs: “Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.” (Even this week, Rowling demonstrated her resolve, rebuking John Oliver — whom she met when he volunteered for her children’s charity, Lumos — for speaking on his HBO series “Last Week Tonight” in support of trans kids playing sports, which the author called “absolute bullshit.”)
For any actor joining the new “Harry Potter” series, Rowling has thrown down a gauntlet they’re unlikely to escape once casting for the show begins in earnest next year — just as the incoming Trump administration will likely start implementing plans to roll back protections for trans youth and health care. “You can’t fault somebody for wanting to do the job. But the internet and the fandom and the politics of it all are probably going to demand that they say something,” Miller says. “If you don’t, people are going to automatically assume that you agree with Rowling.”
While some Potter fans have advocated for a boycott of the new series — which Rowling mocked in 2023 — Anelli has grown dubious about how effective it could be. “There’s the argument that support increases [Rowling’s] influence,” she says. “I don’t know how much more she can have. Money is sort of theoretical to her. It’s in the stratosphere of what does a raindrop do to a thunderstorm?” Four years of fan outcry and shunning of her work, Anelli says, “has not affected the bottom line at all” within the vast Potter industry of book sales, video games, theme parks, toys and other ancillary revenue streams. At this point, she sees total disengagement to be self-defeating: “If everybody who objects just leaves the floor, we’re leaving [Rowling] with a microphone all alone and no ability to influence that dialogue.”
That prospect is what prompted Tylor Starr, Potter fandom expert and co-author of “The Unofficial Harry Potter Vegan Cookbook,” to take a private, informal survey of roughly 250 “deeply engaged Harry Potter fans” on their feelings about Rowling and the franchise. One of his findings, he says, is that 79% of cisgender respondents felt conflicted about buying a new Potter-related product. That led Starr to start exploring ways for fans to “offset” the purchase of Potter material. “If you buy a new wand, can you donate a portion of that to a transgender charity?” he says. “There are so many fans who deeply disagree with what Rowling is saying, but still want to engage in the Harry Potter fandom.”
Ironically, while Rowling’s actions have undermined many Potter fans’ dedication to her, they also appear to have strengthened those fans’ solidarity with each other. “Abandoning the fandom and shutting it down is not the place we wanted to be,” Miller says. “We see the value in the community that the fans created. We can love and enjoy that without the author.”
The question now is whether HBO can cast the same spell.
From Variety US