The continued engagement with the Harry Potter franchise, despite its creator J.K. Rowling's public stance on transgender issues, is presented as a direct contribution to harm against the transgender community. This argument posits that any participation in or promotion of the franchise, regardless of intent, funnels resources and notoriety to Rowling, thereby empowering her anti-transgender activism.

The discussion highlights the case of actor Nicholas Hoult, who was initially slated to play Gilderoy Lockhart in the upcoming Harry Potter television series. Hoult withdrew from the role days after his casting was announced, with the official reason cited as scheduling conflicts. The author of this piece expresses skepticism regarding this explanation, suggesting that Hoult likely withdrew due to backlash and a realization of the career implications of associating with a project that benefits Rowling. The author argues that if Hoult's withdrawal was due to a scheduling conflict, it implies he would have participated otherwise, thus making him a "bigot" for empowering Rowling's agenda. Conversely, if he withdrew due to backlash, his use of "scheduling conflicts" is seen as cowardly, avoiding an admission of error.

The piece asserts that J.K. Rowling's actions and statements constitute active harm to the transgender community. A timeline of her alleged anti-transgender actions is provided:

• 2018: Liked a transphobic tweet, later claiming a "middle-aged moment."
• 2019: Supported Maya Forstater, founder of the anti-trans organization Sex Matters, following an employment tribunal that protected "gender critical" beliefs in the UK.
• 2020: Published an essay expressing "gender critical" views, described as steeped in transphobia.
• Ongoing: Actively supported anti-trans groups like the LGBT Alliance and Sex Matters. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy for Sex Matters, is quoted as viewing trans people as a "huge problem to a sane world."
• 2022: Opposed Scotland's reform of the Gender Recognition Act, arguing it would enable trans women to abuse cis women in single-sex spaces, a claim the author states lacks supporting data.
• 2024: Participated in "genocide denial," claiming it was a lie that trans people were killed alongside Jewish people in World War II and disputing the origin of a famous Nazi book burning image.
• 2024: Alleged cisgender Olympic boxer Eman Khalif was trans due to masculine features, a claim never retracted or apologized for, which the author states continues to lead people to believe Khalif is trans.
• 2025: Financially contributed to For Women Scotland's legal costs, which led to a UK Supreme Court ruling excluding trans people from single-sex spaces.
• 2025: Established the J.K. Rowling Women's Fund to financially support individuals taking businesses to court for being trans-inclusive.
• Recently: Posted an "upskirt" image of trans advocate Freya Wallace, implying Wallace was "asking for it" due to being a trans woman in a skirt. Gina Martin, who campaigned to make upskirting a criminal offense, expressed disgust.

Rowling herself has stated that the Harry Potter franchise's profits support her anti-trans activism, including the J.K. Rowling Women's Fund. The author contends that Rowling is not a feminist, but rather serves the patriarchy under the guise of protecting women, as she has not engaged in other feminist philanthropy such as addressing period poverty or speaking out against figures like Russell Brand, Andrew Tate, or Donald Trump, nor has she decried the Epstein files.

The piece criticizes the argument that all businesses are inherently "evil" and that individuals have no obligation beyond providing entertainment. It dismisses the notion that actors are coerced into taking jobs, particularly those with significant stature like Hoult, arguing that such a defense is more applicable to extras and ground-level crew, who are generally exempted from this critique. The author asserts that associating with Rowling's work is not equivalent to working for a generally "bad person" but rather directly funding anti-transgender legislation and activism.

The concept of "no ethical consumption under capitalism" is addressed, acknowledging that most consumption involves some degree of harm. However, the author distinguishes the Harry Potter franchise from this complex web, describing engagement with it as a "straight line" and a "direct funnel" of money and influence to Rowling's anti-transgender agenda. This directness, the author argues, makes it a clear-cut ethical issue, unlike the more convoluted ethical dilemmas of globalized capitalism.

The author states a refusal to offer grace or forgiveness to those involved in the franchise, with exceptions made for children and ground-level crew who may lack agency or financial stability. Directors, writers, producers, and mainline actors are subject to judgment. While acknowledging a spectrum of culpability, the author expresses a strong negative stance towards those who actively participate in the franchise, particularly those who were eager to join, such as Kit Harington, or those who have not explicitly condemned Rowling's transphobia, such as Nick Frost. John Lithgow and P.V. Powley are also criticized for attempting to distance themselves while still participating. Belle Powley, in particular, is called an "enemy of trans people" for her statements and actions.

The piece also targets the Harry Potter fandom, criticizing its defensiveness and the argument that liking the franchise does not equate to transphobia. The author states that six years of grace have been extended since Rowling's 2020 essay, and continued public engagement, defense of the franchise, or display of fan merchandise is seen as contributing to the problem and making individuals "bigots." The author notes that Warner Bros.' aggressive promotion of Harry Potter tie-in merchandise and references in other media, such as "Lanterns," is a deliberate attempt to normalize the franchise and maintain its relevance.

The author argues that franchises, even lucrative ones, can be let go if they become financially unviable or generate too much negative press. Examples cited include Warner Bros. ceasing its involvement with the Lego license after underperforming films and reducing the planned "Fantastic Beasts" series from five to three movies. The author contends that continued fan engagement, even without direct financial contribution, keeps the franchise alive and relevant, thereby perpetuating Rowling's influence.

The piece concludes by stating that continuing to engage with Harry Potter prioritizes nostalgia over the rights and safety of transgender people. The author asserts that unlike immutable characteristics, fandom is a choice that can be changed. The author expresses a loss of patience, stating that after six years of attempting to persuade people, those who have not disengaged are unlikely to do so. The author will judge those who continue to engage with the franchise, particularly creators who make casual positive references and actors of stature who choose to participate. The author explicitly states that anyone alienated by these views was never truly an ally.

The author acknowledges that while there might be a path for some individuals involved in the franchise to make amends, such as Michelle Gomez's statement and donation to an LGBTQIA+ health organization, this is an exception. The author emphasizes that Rowling's transphobia is not intertwined with other feminist causes but is her primary focus, to the exclusion of genuine feminist work. The author contrasts Rowling with figures like H.P. Lovecraft and Orson Scott Card, arguing that their problematic views do not directly benefit them financially or influence public discourse in the same way as Rowling's continued engagement with the Harry Potter franchise. George Lucas's stewardship of Star Wars is presented as a counterexample of a powerful IP owner who did not use his influence for a "bigoted political agenda."

The author concludes by stating that continued engagement with the Harry Potter franchise is a choice that perpetuates harm and that those who make this choice will be judged. The author expresses a desire for the franchise to die down, believing that Warner Bros. would eventually abandon it if it became sufficiently unprofitable and generated too much negative press.