I don't really expect anyone to read this entire page, but I felt obligated to cover all of the bases because Harry Potter has made up such a large part of my identity, starting when I was a child. I want my opinions on the matter to be VERY clear so that nobody thinks I'm endorsing J.K. Rowling or her transphobia.

     This is especially important due to the fact that there is a Harry Potter reference hidden in my pen name. I chose the name many years before my first book was published, and had already been using it extensively on social media. I didn't want to lose my "brand," plus I figured it was subtle enough, so I opted to keep it. Had I known that the author of my favorite story was going to turn out to be a bigot, I would have come up with something different.

     "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks!" —Michael Bolton, Office Space

     My initial feelings about the situation were mainly shock and confusion. Bigotry of any kind blatantly violates one of the main themes of Harry Potter. There have even been psychological studies showing that reading Harry Potter makes people less prejudiced towards minority groups. Not to mention the fact that J.K. Rowling had expressed support for the gay community in the past, so she was considered to be a queer ally at the time. The idea that she could teach those values so beautifully, but not hold them herself, was completely baffling to me.

     The next emotions to settle in were devastation and a sense of betrayal. These are pretty self-explanatory. I had devoted a massive chunk of my life to Harry Potter, and now I know that my childhood hero thinks that I'm a delusional, anti-feminist pervert who shouldn't exist.

     Lastly, I simply felt stupid. After all, I don't know J.K. Rowling personally. She's just a celebrity. The emotional reaction that I was experiencing was probably my own fault for holding a complete stranger in such high regard. I truly believed that she was a good person, but it was ridiculous of me to come to that conclusion when we had never met. This feeling of stupidity increased after talking to another nonbinary person who "already knew" that J.K. Rowling was transphobic and didn't seem to care, which reinforced the thought that I was foolish for being emotionally affected by her, and also pointed out that I must have missed some signs.

     After the news of J.K. Rowling's transphobia broke, I saw a lot of people online coming out of the woodwork to say things like "Harry Potter was never that great anyway," or "Harry Potter was always problematic." In my opinion, statements like this make the speaker sound like one of those guys who asks a girl out, gets rejected, and then tells the girl that she's ugly. I can understand that the series has been ruined for a lot of fans who won't be able to read it or watch it without thinking about the author's cruel views, but let's not try to rewrite history just because we're hurting.

     Harry Potter is good literature. It wouldn't have achieved such widespread popularity and become a household name if it wasn't. It is very unfortunate that it was written by a hateful person, but to suggest that Harry Potter is a mediocre piece of media is to deny reality. This is especially the case since the topic of gender identity never comes up in the books, so the story itself does not showcase J.K. Rowling's specific brand of bigotry. Let's not forget why we fell in love with this tale in the first place.

     J.K. Rowling is definitely not the only person ever to have unacceptable morals and also create incredible art. There are examples all over Hollywood, the music industry, and every other sector of society where creativity happens. And yet, despite how frequently it occurs, folks still seem to have a difficult time accepting it. I have seen first-hand the kindest of individuals defend the most heinous of crimes, just because they enjoyed the work that the perpetrator created. They didn't want to give up their love for the work, but they also didn't want to seem like they supported the artist's behavior, so the easiest thing to do was to act like the behavior either didn't happen or wasn't that big of a deal. The sooner we accept that bad people can create good art, and the sooner we stop pretending that loving someone's work means condoning everything that they do, the easier it will be to grapple with these types of scenarios.

     Of course, there is the issue that engaging with art in certain ways— namely financial ways— directly benefits the creator, which puts a damper on the concept of separating the art from the artist. I'll address that more in segment 5, though. For this segment, I just want to acknowledge that I still love Harry Potter, despite my outrage and disgust towards J.K. Rowling. 

     I've seen both of these sentiments expressed by different people. They represent two different schools of thought in regards to how J.K. Rowling's transphobia has affected the way we feel about Harry Potter.

     Each point has its merits, but I mostly lean towards the second one.

     My Harry Potter experience has been soured. I won't deny that. But I'm also finding it impossible to extinguish all the positive feelings, associations, and memories of it that light up my very soul. Even if I could, truth be told, there is a sense of power in channeling my passion for Harry Potter against its own author's hatred. It is deliciously ironic to me that J.K. Rowling forged her own enemies, in a way, since the Wizarding World helped inspire so many of us in the queer community to be open and proud about who we are. She may have created that world, but not even she can take it away from us. 

     This question is really the core of the entire debate. I touched on the concept a bit in segment 3, but I want to be more direct about where I stand on this issue.

     In my opinion, there are times when it's appropriate to separate the art from the artist and times when it's not. We pretty much have to do it at least a little if we ever want to enjoy any art at all, because there are simply not enough morally pure humans out there in the world. Almost everything that you enjoy probably had at least one horrible person contribute to its creation. So, how does one determine when the separation is appropriate and when it is not?

     In order to answer that question, there are two other questions I like to ask myself. The first question is: How does my engagement with this art benefit the artist?

     In some cases, engaging with the art does not benefit the artist at all— namely, if the artist has already passed away. For example, Adolf Hitler was obviously an evil person, but since he is dead, you can buy his paintings or purchase a copy of Mein Kampf without it being morally wrong, because Hitler can no longer use those profits to finance himself or his genocidal agenda.

     J.K. Rowling is a very different case. Not only is she still alive, but she is using her Harry Potter profits to fund her various anti-trans projects. This means that every time you buy official Harry Potter merchandise from a retail store, or do anything else that earns J.K. Rowling money, you are technically donating to anti-trans causes.

     The second question I like to ask myself is: Does the art itself have anything to do with why I am morally opposed to the artist?

     Let's use Hitler as an example again. His book, Mein Kampf, is a manifesto of his bigotry. While the previous question established that there's nothing wrong with purchasing it, there is definitely something wrong with agreeing with the viewpoints in it. You cannot separate the art from the artist here because the book is a reflection of everything that made Hitler so repulsive. His paintings, on the other hand, are completely unrelated. He painted buildings and landscapes, just like so many other artists do. Because the paintings do not depict Hitler's unsavory ethics the way that Mein Kampf does, I would argue that there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying the paintings.

     Now, where does the second question leave us with J.K. Rowling? As I mentioned in segment 3, the topic of gender identity never comes up in Harry Potter. The story doesn't even have any trans characters, at least as far as the audience is shown. If you knew nothing about its author, there is no way that you could read Harry Potter and derive transphobia from it. Therefore, I do not see anything morally wrong with enjoying Harry Potter.

     So, with J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter, is it appropriate to separate the art from the artist or not? The first question suggests that we shouldn't, but the second question suggests that it's okay. As it turns out, the answer isn't so black and white. Sometimes you have to compartmentalize, and either separate or not separate based on context.

     Personally, I am choosing not to separate in any context where J.K. Rowling will benefit financially, but I am separating when it comes to everything else. I will outline the specific details on that in segment 7.

     It is true that, in a capitalistic society, we are all hypocrites to a certain extent. For example, if you were to poll a random group of people and ask them whether or not they supported slavery, most would say no, but those same people probably buy products that were made in overseas sweatshops. Much of this is due to ignorance of course, but even for those who know, sadly there are too many mainstream companies with unethical business practices for us to boycott all of them; especially considering that the more ethical options are often more expensive.

     Being an ethical consumer also gets tricky when multiple individuals are involved with whatever you're buying. In the case of Harry Potter, the books are one thing, but boycotting other aspects of the franchise affects more than just J.K. Rowling. Is it worth punishing all the actors, all the video game developers, all the theme park workers, and everyone else whose livelihood relies on Harry Potter in some way, just for the sake of punishing J.K. Rowling? I'm not entirely certain that there's a right or wrong answer to that question.

     All of that being said, I have still made the decision to boycott anything that gives J.K. Rowling more money. We may not be able to avoid giving money to every bad cause, but that doesn't mean that we can't do our best to avoid at least some of them.

     Due to the nuanced nature of the situation, I can respect those who take the opposite stance, though I will not support that stance myself. I understand that I come with bias here since this is an issue that affects me on an extremely personal level. I understand that for those who are not personally affected, indirectly contributing towards transphobia probably seems just as abstract and unavoidable as contributing towards sweatshops. I understand that I might be a hypocrite for speaking out against the former and not the latter. With all of that in mind, I do my best not to judge those who have made different decisions, but I would like my loved ones to know that I feel incredibly hurt by those decisions. 

     Simply put, I am refusing to do anything that will give J.K. Rowling more money, but everything else is fair game.

     I still love Harry Potter, so I will still buy fan-made or second-hand merchandise. I pirated the last Fantastic Beasts movie, and plan to pirate the HBO show when that comes out as well. I have continued wearing my Harry Potter apparel that I acquired prior to learning of J.K. Rowling's transphobia. However, I am avoiding anything that will make the numbers in her bank account go up, because I know that those numbers are contributing towards causes that actively hurt trans people. 

     This is incredibly difficult and sad for me, since it doesn't just mean resisting a lot of cool merchandise— it also means things like not seeing The Cursed Child live, and not going back to those areas of Universal Studios. Basically, I'm missing out on participating in the fandom experience, which was almost as fun and meaningful as reading or watching the story itself. I'm not going to lie and say that this decision hasn't been heartbreaking and gut-wrenching for me, but I just can't bring myself to subsidize my own genocide (more than I unknowingly already did).

     I realize that there are many fellow boycotters who disapprove of my approach. I will defend my position on this in segments 8 through 10.

     On a related note: Please don't buy me any Harry Potter-related gifts if getting the gift means further lining J.K. Rowling's pockets. Ideally, I'd like to raise awareness and beg as many folks as possible to stop helping her earn any more money, but for those in my life who refuse, at bare minimum I must ask you not to involve me in it. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, and I'll gladly accept anything fan-made or second-hand, but otherwise it's kind of a slap in the face. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

     I keep seeing this talking point in queer spaces, which baffles me because it comes from J.K. Rowling herself. She publicly declared her opinion that liking Harry Potter means agreeing with her views, and for some reason, the queer community decided to roll with it.

     I have just one thing to say in response to that: She's wrong.

     That's it. She is wrong. She is incorrect. I can't believe I even have to explain this. Any reasonable person will tell you that she's wrong about her transphobia, so why are we refusing to acknowledge that she's wrong about this?

     You are not hurting trans people when you read the Harry Potter books that you already own. You are not hurting trans people when you watch the Harry Potter movies on DVDs that you already own. You are not hurting trans people when you write Harry Potter fanfiction. You are not hurting trans people when you draw Harry Potter fanart. You are not hurting trans people by having a Harry Potter tattoo. None of these activities result in profit for J.K. Rowling, therefore none of these activities are financing her anti-trans campaigns. At worst, you're giving her an ego boost, but she does not have the power to change laws with her ego.

     And then there are the ignorant ones. There are some fans out there who are hurting trans people by participating in activities that give J.K. Rowling money, but they're doing it because they genuinely don't know. This is why raising awareness is so important, but at the same time, I'm not going to accuse some random mother of endorsing transphobia because she bought her child a Harry Potter Lego set. Most of these individuals are not keeping up with behind the scenes news— all they know is that their kid loves Harry Potter, and they want to make their kid happy. Reacting with such strict hostility is not going to help our cause, especially since we're dealing with a franchise that is so near and dear to so many hearts.

     I'm all for stopping J.K. Rowling's cash flow, but this attitude crosses the line into a kind of moral purity snobbery that's more performative than helpful. Harvey Weinstein produced all three Lord of the Rings movies, yet you never see anyone claiming that being a Lord of the Rings fan means supporting rape. It is simply not reasonable to expect people to do background checks on every single artist whose work they enjoy, let alone share every single value of each of those artists. If that standard was applied universally, it would be nearly impossible to engage with any art at all.

     I might have agreed with the "free advertising" talking point if we were discussing an indie series, but Harry Potter is one of the most famous, most successful franchises of all time. The idea of someone finding out about Harry Potter by seeing a stranger walking down the street with a Gryffindor crest on their t-shirt is silly. Trying to prevent people from knowing about Harry Potter would be just as difficult as trying to prevent people from knowing about Mickey Mouse or Superman. The ship has already sailed.

     In fact, I've personally experienced the opposite: Wearing Harry Potter merchandise in public has given me the opportunity to educate others about J.K. Rowling's harmful views. Namely, every time someone compliments me on my Harry Potter attire, I respond with something like "For the record, I bought this before I knew that J.K. Rowling was a transphobe." More often than not, the complimenter reacts with surprise and says that they had no idea J.K. Rowling was transphobic. I'm then able to summarize the situation and encourage the person not to give J.K. Rowling any more money, while still bonding with them over our mutual love of Harry Potter.

     Conversations matter more than fashion.

     This take is, in my opinion, completely unhinged.

     I believe segments 8 and 9 already cover the reasons why I disagree with this statement, so I won't repeat myself too much here. Simply put, this is another example of being more performative than helpful. People who say this are trying to act like wearing a Harry Potter shirt is along the same lines as wearing a swastika, which is downright untrue.

     I'd rather someone rock their pre-owned or fan-made Harry Potter merchandise while protesting with their wallet, than hide the fact that they're a fan and pay for Harry Potter content behind closed doors. Once again, the money is what's important. I'm not going to judge anyone for wearing Harry Potter apparel, especially if I don't know all the details as to where it came from or why they're wearing it.

     First of all, I do. Harry Potter is my favorite book series, but it is far from the only book series that I love. There seems to be a belief that some Harry Potter fans are "clinging to it" because it is the only thing they read, but I have never witnessed this phenomenon myself.

     Second of all, this is not a good-faith argument. Of course there are other books out there that some Harry Potter fans will like just as much, if not more. However, the underlying message of "read a different book" is often about finding books to replace Harry Potter, which is just not realistic. We cannot undo our childhoods to remove the space Harry Potter occupies in our hearts. We cannot simply delete the nostalgia from our minds. No other book will replace Harry Potter because no other book gave us those same experiences that Harry Potter did.

     And you know what? That's okay. It's okay for you to have those positive childhood memories. It's okay for you to have that strong nostalgia. What's not okay is for you to use those things as an excuse to continue supporting a hateful cause. By all means, please keep enjoying the Harry Potter books that you already own. Don't let anybody take that away from you. But you can do that without giving J.K. Rowling any more money, now that you know where that money is going.

     This is 100% correct, and why I strongly encourage you to stop giving J.K. Rowling money.

     I'm not saying that Harry Potter isn't important. As a writer myself, I understand and appreciate the power of a good story, and as a human being, I understand and appreciate the way fiction can be intertwined with our relationships, experiences, and identities. I'm not trying to diminish any of that, hence all of the previous segments where I acknowledged ways you can support the cause without having to let go of Harry Potter completely.

     But for the love of god, PLEASE stop giving J.K. Rowling any more money. I am begging you. The money is what really makes the difference. The money is what's hurting us. I will never ask you to stop loving Harry Potter, but if you truly care about trans people, you need to stop spending money on it.

     In segment 2, I mentioned how J.K. Rowling being transphobic seemed wildly out of character for her at the time. Though I chalked this up to not knowing her personally and basically being fooled by her public persona, I'm still having difficulty wrapping my head around it. The fact that it's become such an obsession for her makes it all the more baffling. However, there is a conspiracy theory floating around that may explain everything.

     I call it a conspiracy theory because I'm not one hundred percent certain that I believe it myself. I admit that it might just be wishful thinking on my part, because if this theory does turn out to be correct, it would be one of the few scenarios that could make it possible for me to forgive J.K. Rowling. Pathetic as it may be, I would love to have my childhood hero back. Disclaimers aside though, the idea is still worthy of discussion due to how much sense it makes.

     The theory I'm referring to, of course, is the one that says J.K. Rowling is a closeted trans man, or possibly a closeted nonbinary person.

     This article from Pink News does an excellent job outlining how J.K. Rowling essentially described experiencing gender dysphoria in her youth, but since transitioning did not feel like an option back then, she compartmentalized it as a mental health issue that she had to get over. She appears to confuse dysphoria with a desire to escape sexism, and operates under the assumption that all little girls go through it at some point in their lives. The most blatant piece of evidence is a quote from her where she straight-up says that she might have tried to transition had she been born thirty years later.

     There are additional signs that the Pink News article doesn't cover, but I don't want to delve too deep into speculation, so I won't go over the entire list. (Using a male-sounding pen name for the Cormoran Strike series is one of the more obvious examples.) The longer and more intensely J.K. Rowling doubles down on her anti-trans brigade, the less likely her coming out probably is, so I'm not expecting a satisfying resolution here, even if the theory is true.

     But what if? What if she did overcome the sunk cost fallacy, swallow her pride, and come out as a transgender man or nonbinary person? As I stated earlier, this would be one of the few scenarios that could make it possible for me to forgive her. However, it would not be an automatic forgiveness. It would require major work on her part to undo all the damage that she's caused to the rest of us. As long as she put in that work though, there's a very good chance that I would be willing to support her again. What can I say? I'm a sucker for a good redemption arc.