J.K. Rowling, the British author famous for the Harry Potter series, made headlines again in May 2025 by creating the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund. This fund, endowed with several million euros, aims to finance legal actions. These actions defend women’s rights based on biological sex. Thus, the initiative has sparked an outcry among LGBTQ+ associations. They see it as a direct attack on transgender people.
Moreover, this new act is part of a series of committed stances taken since 2020. That year, Rowling published a series of tweets and an op-ed where she expressed her doubts about the idea of gender self-determination. Since then, she has publicly supported "gender-critical" groups. She opposes British law reforms aimed at simplifying gender recognition for trans people.
Fans divided over the author’s activist stance
This political orientation is not without consequences. HBO is preparing to produce a new adaptation of Harry Potter, a series that will bring in several million euros for its author. Thus, many readers are wondering: is it possible to continue enjoying the work without endorsing her personal positions?
Actors from the saga, such as Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, or Eddie Redmayne, have publicly distanced themselves from her statements. Additionally, the LGBTQ+ community regularly calls for a boycott of her merchandise, accusing Rowling of being a symbol of exclusion.
However, this opposition is not only explained by recent statements. It has roots in a more complex biographical and cultural trajectory.
Personal experiences and vision of feminism
Before gaining fame, J.K. Rowling experienced a period of great hardship. She raised her daughter alone in Edinburgh after fleeing a relationship marked by domestic violence. Thus, she became involved early on in the protection of vulnerable women and children. She funds actions against poverty and for the rights of single mothers.
However, her feminism took a more radical turn at the end of the 2010s. She adheres to a so-called TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) ideology, which refuses to include trans women in the definition of the female gender. She asserts that biology should take precedence over felt identity. Thus, she considers the access of trans women to single-sex spaces as dangerous, viewing them as places to be protected for cisgender women.
Her positions are expressed in op-eds, interviews, and also in her recent novels published under a pseudonym. Some critics accuse her of portraying trans characters as deviant or dangerous.
A UK polarized on gender issues
The British political context contributes to the crystallization of the debate. For several years, the country has been experiencing a cultural polarization around gender identity. Historic feminist organizations, like Women’s Place UK, oppose the extension of trans rights. They fear that the notion of "gender identity" challenges important legal achievements. These are built on the biological distinction between men and women.
On the other hand, associations like Stonewall or Mermaids advocate for a model of self-determination, based on human rights and the fight against transphobia. Tensions culminated in April 2025 with a revision of the Equality Act. The government clarified that sex-based protections apply only to those registered as female at birth. This change was welcomed by Rowling but condemned by the UN and Amnesty International.
A dissonance between the work and the political message
This militant transformation confuses many readers. The Harry Potter series, published between 1997 and 2007, is perceived as an anthem to tolerance. Moreover, it values difference and encourages the fight against oppression. Fans see it as an allegory of social discrimination and moral courage in the face of exclusion.
Yet, the author now seems to convey a rigid discourse, fueled by cultural fears and an essentialist view of gender. This contrast unsettles readers, some even reconsidering the deeper message of her books.
A central question: can we separate the artist from their work?
The situation of J.K. Rowling illustrates a contemporary dilemma: is it possible to dissociate artistic creation from political engagement? For some, enjoying Harry Potter does not imply agreeing with the author’s views. For others, every purchase or broadcast strengthens a fortune used for controversial purposes.
Thus, the Rowling case joins that of other criticized artistic figures. It raises the question of creators’ responsibility regarding the social impact of their fame. It also highlights the tensions between freedom of expression and public consequences. Moreover, this occurs at a time when discourses can reinforce dynamics of exclusion.
A literary, political, and societal affair
J.K. Rowling has become much more than a fantasy novel author. Through her stances, she embodies a conservative turn in British feminism, breaking away from part of her fans and the popular culture she helped shape.
The controversy over her remarks on trans people is part of a series of profound social changes. It questions our ability to reconcile respect for identities, freedom of opinion, and artistic engagement. The debate remains lively and likely enduring.