Navigating the Ethics of Consuming HBO’s Harry Potter Series
In the next few years, HBO aims to transform its upcoming Harry Potter series into “the streaming event of the decade,” adapting each of the franchise’s seven original books. This show has the potential to captivate a new generation of fans who missed out on the original wave of Pottermania that surged with each book release and the subsequent film adaptations. If the series succeeds, it might even inspire J.K. Rowling to pen more stories set in the enchanting world that made her a billionaire.
However, the success of HBO’s Harry Potter hinges on whether viewers will tune in, especially since Rowling is heavily involved in the production. While having the original creator on board can be beneficial, Rowling’s participation casts a significant shadow over the project. She has made her stance on transgender issues clear, advocating for legal actions against transgender individuals, which complicates the excitement many fans feel about the series. Watching this show inevitably means supporting Rowling’s controversial views and the harm they inflict on a vulnerable community.
For years, Rowling has masked her transphobia under the guise of advocating for cisgender women’s rights. Recently, she praised the International Olympic Committee for banning transgender women from competing, implicitly misgendering 2024 boxing gold medalist Imane Khelif in the process. This incident is just one of many where Rowling has used transphobic rhetoric, leading Khelif to file a criminal complaint against her last summer.
While many had suspected Rowling’s views from her interactions with trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), it wasn’t until 2019 that she openly identified as a TERF during a significant UK legal case. She expressed support for Maya Forstater, a tax consultant whose contract was not renewed due to her transphobic tweets. Forstater, who identifies as a “gender-critical activist,” sued the Centre for Global Development, claiming her dismissal violated the UK’s 2010 Equality Act.
Although the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on “gender reassignment,” Forstater argued she was being persecuted for her beliefs. A judge dismissed her case, stating her views were “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others.” However, Forstater appealed, and in 2021, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in her favor.
Rowling’s tweet did not directly lead to Forstater receiving £106,400 ($141,683) in damages in 2023, but her alignment with TERF ideologies significantly contributed to the broader culture of transphobia in the UK. By supporting Forstater, Rowling encouraged the public to adopt harmful beliefs and view transgender individuals as societal threats. She understands that her celebrity status amplifies transphobic narratives in ways that others cannot, and her wealth positions her to further the TERF agenda on a societal scale.
In 2024, Rowling donated £70,000 ($93,212) to For Women Scotland (FWS), a group that opposed Scotland’s 2018 Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, which included trans women in its definition of women. FWS initially won a judicial review in 2022, but that decision was reversed in 2023. An amended version of the Act, which aligned with the British 2010 Equality Act’s definition of women, was signed into law in 2024. FWS subsequently lost another judicial review against this amendment, which went to the UK Supreme Court, ruling that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex assigned at birth. To fund this legal battle, FWS turned to crowdfunding, and Rowling eagerly contributed.
The UK Supreme Court’s definition is problematic, as human biology is not strictly binary. This ruling not only denies transgender individuals legal recognition of their gender identity but also complicates their ability to pursue legal action for gender-based discrimination. Rowling celebrated the Court’s decision with a photo and a message indicating her satisfaction with the outcome, which effectively supported an anti-trans campaign and resulted in legislation that reduces all women in the UK to their biological sex at birth.
Rowling has been open about her intent to continue supporting efforts that undermine the dignity and rights of transgender individuals. This is evident in The J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, launched in 2025, which claims to advocate for women’s and girls’ sex-based rights. The Fund provides financial backing for cisgender women pursuing lawsuits and highlights the For Women Scotland case as a model for success.
Rowling’s financial power stems from her ownership of the Harry Potter franchise, which generates revenue from books, movies, games, and merchandise. With her current net worth around $1.2 billion, she could sustain her anti-trans efforts even without HBO’s new series. However, with the show set to run for at least a decade, she will have even more resources to promote her regressive views.
This reality seems to be of little concern to HBO’s executives, whose primary focus is boosting stock value and securing lucrative paychecks. Yet, it’s a critical consideration for HBO’s subscribers as the network ramps up the Harry Potter hype ahead of the show’s premiere. HBO likely prefers that viewers overlook the implications of supporting a known bigot and the harmful messaging that can endanger lives. Meanwhile, Rowling would rather people not explore the many other magical academia series available to enjoy.
